The summer that Muni Wi-Fi died

TalkBack 1 of 7:: Next »

Thread View
Flat View

Selective reading.: The failure of municipal wifi was in part the result of agreements in which private companies agreed to make the investment necessary and municipalities agreed to let them. Mr. Wu calls the companies "underqualified". The word "foolish" is an alternative.

The reason more qualified companies did not line up for the opportunity was stated by Mr. Wu:

Setting up a large wireless network isn't as expensive as installing wires into people's homes, but it still costs a lot of money. Not billions, but still millions. To recover costs, the private "partner" has to charge for service. But if the customer already has a cable or telephone connection to his home, why switch to wireless unless it is dramatically cheaper or better? In typical configurations, municipal wireless connections are slower, not dramatically cheaper, and by their nature less reliable than existing Internet services. Those facts have put muni Wi-Fi in the same deathtrap that drowned every other company that peddled a new Net access scheme.

[End quote.]

There's not enough money in it.

So if free municipal wifi is considered a good in itself, something people should have, the local government should agree to provide it to them.

Of course, in that case, almost everyone who already pays for internet access will wonder why he should pay for a service he will use infrequently, if at all. Unlike childless people who complain about paying for schools, people opposed to a redundant service can be successful.

By the way, the article is in Slate, not Salon.; Posted by: Anton Philidor Posted on: 10/03/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use