On Wi-Fi
from Yahoo News:
A growing number of cities plan to offer wireless Internet access as a municipal service. But as those plans spread, a backlash appears to be forming.
More than 50 U.S. cities have set up or plan to install wireless broadband networks. Minneapolis is the latest to join the list.
A number of think tanks oppose such moves. And some state lawmakers look to ban cities from going into the wireless business.
Critics say city wireless networks waste tax money. The goal of city networks -- low-cost broadband Internet access for all -- is noble. But business, not cities, should meet that goal, they say.
Cities are "proposing to cover large areas with wireless," said Steve Titch, a researcher for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank. "But this is a very dubious proposition for cities."
Advocates say city-owned wireless is needed, since private services don't provide adequate access at fair rates. And the backlash against municipal plans was spurred by corporate wireless providers, they say, not individuals.
"This isn't a grass-roots backlash," said Ron Sege, chief executive of wireless gear firm Tropos Networks, which supports municipal wireless plans. "This is an organized campaign of disinformation."
Lawmakers in 10 states have bills to limit city-built wireless networks. That's created headaches for a number of cities.
Take Philadelphia, which plans a $10 million citywide wireless network. Under a Pennsylvania law passed in December, cities that want to extend wireless Internet access to residents must first ask local service providers to do the job. If the provider can't offer such service in a year's time, the local government can do the job itself.
Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ - News), the area's major telecom provider, initially opposed Philadelphia's plan. But it recently changed its stance, and the city is going forward with its wireless efforts. Philadelphia has set up a nonprofit company to get bids for building the network.
Critics of city-run networks, such as the Heartland Institute, the New Millennium Research Council and various telecom lobbying groups, say the issue is one of ideology.
They don't believe cities should provide services such as broadband. If businesses don't offer it, there's not enough demand, they say.
Most of the groups have ties to the telecom field, others note, and that calls their judgment into question. The New Millennium Research Council is part of a public relations firm. The firm's clients include BellSouth (NYSE:BLS - News), SBC Communications (NYSE:SBC - News) and Verizon.
The main issue is that taxpayers are getting a raw deal, says Titch. Several city-run broadband projects in Iowa, California and Ohio have cost more than planned, he says. They've required ongoing taxpayer funding or have been sold off at a loss.
"These networks are not slam-dunks," Titch said. "The upfront and ongoing costs are hard to predict."
Governments don't understand that technology can change, Titch says. So they may get stuck with a project that's already outmoded when it's completed.
Most cities look to use Wi-Fi technology as the way to connect homes and businesses to broadband. But a new wireless technology called WiMax is coming along that goes longer distances than Wi-Fi. It's not widely available now, but it will be in coming years.
Interference is another potential problem. If cities deploy Wi-Fi, powerful signals could drown out weaker Wi-Fi networks. "Governments need to be very careful about getting into this business," said Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney. "A dry cleaner could start seeing its Wi-Fi network slow down."
Sege says there's a real need for government to push broadband on its own. About 22 million U.S. households don't have access to broadband service. Current providers won't service many of those areas because it's not economical.
Owensboro, Ky., with a population of 54,000, faced that problem. Local provider BellSouth didn't have broadband widely available.
The city's utility had extra space on its fiber telecom network. So it began connecting to customers via wireless back in 2001.
The utility offers broadband to homes starting at $25 a month and business starting at $50.
The utility is separate from the city, though. So it used its own money, not tax funds. The company is still paying off upfront costs, says Sonya Dixon, a spokeswoman for the provider, Owensboro Municipal Utilities. But ongoing expenses are covered. "We just wanted a low-cost way for businesses and residents to connect," Dixon said.
Similarly, Scottsburg, Ind., had limited broadband access. Verizon could get broadband to those only within one mile of its switch center, says Jim Binkley, manager at Citizens Communications, Scottsburg's city-run wireless service provider.
The initial bids to wire Scottsburg for broadband were up to $10 million. Those bids involved digging up streets and burying cable. Using wireless, the project came in under $500,000, Binkley says.
The city is still recouping upfront costs. But ongoing costs are covered, and demand for service has been better than expected.
A growing number of cities plan to offer wireless Internet access as a municipal service. But as those plans spread, a backlash appears to be forming.
More than 50 U.S. cities have set up or plan to install wireless broadband networks. Minneapolis is the latest to join the list.
A number of think tanks oppose such moves. And some state lawmakers look to ban cities from going into the wireless business.
Critics say city wireless networks waste tax money. The goal of city networks -- low-cost broadband Internet access for all -- is noble. But business, not cities, should meet that goal, they say.
Cities are "proposing to cover large areas with wireless," said Steve Titch, a researcher for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank. "But this is a very dubious proposition for cities."
Advocates say city-owned wireless is needed, since private services don't provide adequate access at fair rates. And the backlash against municipal plans was spurred by corporate wireless providers, they say, not individuals.
"This isn't a grass-roots backlash," said Ron Sege, chief executive of wireless gear firm Tropos Networks, which supports municipal wireless plans. "This is an organized campaign of disinformation."
Lawmakers in 10 states have bills to limit city-built wireless networks. That's created headaches for a number of cities.
Take Philadelphia, which plans a $10 million citywide wireless network. Under a Pennsylvania law passed in December, cities that want to extend wireless Internet access to residents must first ask local service providers to do the job. If the provider can't offer such service in a year's time, the local government can do the job itself.
Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ - News), the area's major telecom provider, initially opposed Philadelphia's plan. But it recently changed its stance, and the city is going forward with its wireless efforts. Philadelphia has set up a nonprofit company to get bids for building the network.
Critics of city-run networks, such as the Heartland Institute, the New Millennium Research Council and various telecom lobbying groups, say the issue is one of ideology.
They don't believe cities should provide services such as broadband. If businesses don't offer it, there's not enough demand, they say.
Most of the groups have ties to the telecom field, others note, and that calls their judgment into question. The New Millennium Research Council is part of a public relations firm. The firm's clients include BellSouth (NYSE:BLS - News), SBC Communications (NYSE:SBC - News) and Verizon.
The main issue is that taxpayers are getting a raw deal, says Titch. Several city-run broadband projects in Iowa, California and Ohio have cost more than planned, he says. They've required ongoing taxpayer funding or have been sold off at a loss.
"These networks are not slam-dunks," Titch said. "The upfront and ongoing costs are hard to predict."
Governments don't understand that technology can change, Titch says. So they may get stuck with a project that's already outmoded when it's completed.
Most cities look to use Wi-Fi technology as the way to connect homes and businesses to broadband. But a new wireless technology called WiMax is coming along that goes longer distances than Wi-Fi. It's not widely available now, but it will be in coming years.
Interference is another potential problem. If cities deploy Wi-Fi, powerful signals could drown out weaker Wi-Fi networks. "Governments need to be very careful about getting into this business," said Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney. "A dry cleaner could start seeing its Wi-Fi network slow down."
Sege says there's a real need for government to push broadband on its own. About 22 million U.S. households don't have access to broadband service. Current providers won't service many of those areas because it's not economical.
Owensboro, Ky., with a population of 54,000, faced that problem. Local provider BellSouth didn't have broadband widely available.
The city's utility had extra space on its fiber telecom network. So it began connecting to customers via wireless back in 2001.
The utility offers broadband to homes starting at $25 a month and business starting at $50.
The utility is separate from the city, though. So it used its own money, not tax funds. The company is still paying off upfront costs, says Sonya Dixon, a spokeswoman for the provider, Owensboro Municipal Utilities. But ongoing expenses are covered. "We just wanted a low-cost way for businesses and residents to connect," Dixon said.
Similarly, Scottsburg, Ind., had limited broadband access. Verizon could get broadband to those only within one mile of its switch center, says Jim Binkley, manager at Citizens Communications, Scottsburg's city-run wireless service provider.
The initial bids to wire Scottsburg for broadband were up to $10 million. Those bids involved digging up streets and burying cable. Using wireless, the project came in under $500,000, Binkley says.
The city is still recouping upfront costs. But ongoing costs are covered, and demand for service has been better than expected.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home