Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Municipal Wi-Fi - A Promise Unfulfilled?

Posted by Zonk on from the problematic-adoption dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Jeff Merron at InformationWeek writes about the problems with municipal Wi-Fi, and how despite the high hopes of cities across the country there hasn't been much success deploying it in reality. He also examines the few successful applications of the technology, and tries to explore why more projects don't make it out of their infancy. 'Thus far, there have been a few true municipal Wi-Fi success stories and several spectacular failures. But more than half of municipal Wi-Fi networks remain only in the planning stages. The broad consensus among analysts and providers is that the only viable business models will be centered around municipal government applications, which appear to be able to provide cities with the ability to provide both better and more cost-efficient services for residents and increase city revenue. This will ensure that providers like EarthLink can recoup their capital costs within a few years.'"

6 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. It's all about the money... by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until towns/cities can do this at a reasonable cost, and until providers can actually make a buck off it, I wouldn't expect to see widespread success at public Wi-Fi projects.

  2. Municipal water - promise unfullfilled by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's going to happen to all the well-digging companies? After all, just like with a wireless base station, one pipe can be shared by at least a dozen users.

    1. Re:Municipal water - promise unfullfilled by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the idea that I keep getting back to if I think about the ISPs enough: the Internet should be thought of as infrastructure. It's comparable to roads, water, and electricity. For many reasons (including various humanitarian and economic reasons), we want a robust infrastructure in our country that is efficient and maintained well enough that the general citizenry can take it for granted. Yes, there are some people who live out in the middle of nowhere without water, electicity or roads, but most people in most places are able to simply expect that those things will exist and work.

      The implimentation is different in different places and for different sorts of infrastructure. I pay a private company for electricity. I don't pay to drive on roads, but I do pay tolls for some bridges. There's still some wiggle-room for how the whole internet thing happens, but it needs to happen in such a way that the gross majority of people receive acceptable access at a reasonable price.

  3. Municipal != Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Municipal Water isn't free.

    Municipal Energy isn't free.

    Municipal Waste Disposal isn't free.

    Municipal Newtwork Service... where did anyone get the idea it should be free?

  4. Re:802.11 Wasn't Designed for Municipal Services by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your university also has high population density and maybe less than universal coverage. Can you get WiFi in the parking lots and the sports fields? 802.11 is inherently a short range technology. Building any kind of municipal size network out of it will be expensive especially with the low population densities of most sprawling US cities.

  5. Re:Putting faith in the governemt. by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that a lot of big companies get to a certain size and power when they can afford to abuse their own customers because they are able to ensure that their customers have no choice. They form little cartels and engage in anti-competitive practices. They use their immense resources to brainwash the public and destroy any competing company, especially if that competing company offers a better product.

    When you hit that point, these companies are worse than the government. They have just as little need to be efficient as "the government", and they really don't have to please their customers anymore. The big difference between themselves and the government at that point is that the government has at least the pretense of "the public good" as a goal, whereas corporations only have "maximizing shareholder investment".

    Yes, you can choose another corporation, and you can choose another government too. But in neither case to revolutions come easy.