Slashdot Mirror
Municipal WiFi Costs Outweigh Benefits
TheSync writes "JupiterResearch claims that muni WiFi costs outweigh benefits. It can cost up to $150,000 per square mile over five years, which may not even provide each user a benefit of $25 a month. They suggest that such projects only be taken on as public-private partnerships."
ive heard the same said about public transportation a few times, and im sure it was said about the power system(which is municipal, at least in some areas)
Honestly, wi-fi in general needs to work better before people are going to use it exclusively. We just stopped using our town's free wi-fi because it sucked. And, I stopped using it in my house a few months back, also. I've never seen a solid, stable, fast wi-fi implementation. It's fun and cute for people checking their email quickly at Starfucks, but wi-fi still isn't there (from everything I've seen) for a regular, dedicated connection.
In the case of municipal WiFi, there are a huge number of public or semi-public hotspots all over major cities. The local governments would have to be offering a really good deal to make this beneficial to everyone. And if this is really a government service, though, one presumes it would be paid for via taxes of some kind. It would be better if the city got involved in helping private companies find places to put access points, perhaps providing some measure of physical security to those locations, for a fixed amount per location per month (let's say it's $3 per AP per month with a minimum of 1000 APs to cover a decent area). The company could then use some kind of authentication mechanism to make sure people connecting had paid for its service (maybe $25/mo).
The university I attend is modifying its wireless network to broadcast two seperate SSIDs - one that authenicated users (ie students, staff, faculty) can use (and is firewalled, etc) and a second that is wide open for anyone to use, but has no security whatsoever. Non-authenticated users could use a lower speed, and unsecured, version of the network (throttled back to a max of say 802.11b), while the paying subscribers would be able to use the higher available bandwidth (802.11a/g). This would allow people in lower income areas to still use the internet, but people who wanted more speed could pay for it.
Of course, with the new precedent set in Tampa Bay FL, how would municipalities actually be able to act on people using the network for illegal activity? (I personally think that it's the user's responsibility to not do anything illegal, but heaven help you if you believe in personal responsibility in America.)
Such muni WiFi projects could also impact other types of internet subscriptions (especially dial-up), and might be viewed as very anti-competitive to local, traditional ISPs.
antipaucity
...or any of several small communities in this state if they'd prefer an inefficient WiFi network to no broadband at all.
Qwest has the DSL rights in Colorado pretty well locked up, and simply won't give service in the rural towns until it's damn good and ready..and that won't be anytime soon, because it hasn't even finished wiring Denver yet. Meanwhile, it's lobbying for a state law to ensure that its monopoly will continue to await Qwest's whim.
rj
What would be a reasonable average proportion of wired internet to wireless?? We get both Cable Internet and DSL around here, and I'd guess the wired households probably outnumber the wireless household by at least 2 or 3 to 1. OK, not all the wired households would go wireless, but some would. We dropped cable completely because the cable (digital TV + internet) costs kept creeping up. DSL + DishTV turned out to be cheaper, plus there're no port or server restrictions... If wireless was available at a competitive price, we'd certainly consider it.
Simply put: they aren't likely to. Mass transport systems haven't gotten rid of the highways, bike trails, or your own two feet, so i figure public WiFi won't kill off cable modems, etc. Public versions of a thing don't necessarily override the free enterprise system, they just try to provide a lowest common denominator.
Whether this effort does this successfully is what's being debated. It's likely that you will be able to get other forms of internet connection, because having a public version will just give the companies who provide it a point of comparison. But people who will be able to have at least that standard, which may be the point.
My problem with this effort is not the government possibly controlling internet access, it's a.) the governments that try to control web _content_, i.e. China, and b.) the fact that WiFi is useless for people too poor to afford computers. Are they going to provide computers, too? Because the cost per person goes up substantially at that rate- without it, though, it's a profound waste of money anyway.
Me, I'd like my town to have more funding for the library, which lets kids use the computers for homework if they don't have them at home. Or the digital bridge projects out there, which provide home computers for families that don't have them- and training to be able to use them.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
I damned well will blame them unless they are entirely open and up front about Who paid for What research and Why. The motivation behind these reports means EVERYTHING.
As it stands, there's no way in HELL I'd ever take a report from these guys even remotely into consideration. It's just buying false advertising really, with no disclaimers attached. Or even the brand of the company paying for the advertising.
It's low down, sleazy, and IMHO, should be illegal.
No Comment.