On Oct 18, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Eric Hinsdale wrote:
Here's a link to a short piece on wireless network planning in
Philadelphia and San Francisco:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6028_7-6358531-1.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
A couple things to note. First, in Philly they're talking a
subsidized cost of $10 per month for low income residents ($20 for
everyone else). Second, the author of the article talks about the
benefits of spending $11 million on a wireless network versus
spending tens of millions on a new stadium.
This is an interesting article. CNET is generally biased against
municipal networks, and this article is not exception. But it also
gets at the whole idea of getting something for nothing -- in this
case free or low-cost wireless on a privately owned network that
comes "at no cost to the city" -- and the fact that citywide wireless
is actually a small investment relative to other things cities spend
money on. (Not just stadiums but also corporate and developer tax
breaks come to mind.)
Expect to see Earthlink offer the $20/$10 set up here in Minneapolis
(semi-finalists to be announced very soon, I understand). But
remember that Minneapolis is looking for something very different
than Philadelphia. Philadelphia's plan is first and foremost to
provide low-cost connections, though they will also get some
municipal services. What all they will get from Earthlink remains to
be seen. (My understanding is that the projected cost of the
Philadelphia network is closer to $15 million - for a city three
times the size of Minneapolis.)
Minneapolis is proposing a network first and foremost to provide
municipal information and communications services, from city offices
to cops on the street. They want to outsource it all with a single
turnkey solution.
San Francisco hasn't said exactly what they're looking for besides
low cost access, and they haven't ruled out public ownership of all
or part of the network. The city has posted the responses to its RFI
on the its web site. I've been told that Minneapolis will not do
anything like this because it would not be fair to the bidders. Maybe
they'll release some information about the proposals before the city
starts final negotiations.
See also this article on the politics of Wi-Fi in San Francisco from
Gigaom.com. The concern there is that a privately owned network
simply will not fly with the public.
http://gigaom.com/2005/10/18/politics-of-san-francisco-wifi-project/
I like Corpus Christi as a model. Publicly owned fiber because they
use it for municipal communications, publicly owned wireless network
because they're using it to monitor the municipal water and gas
system. Now they're looking for private partners who are interested
in selling services to government and/or residents over their
network. Here's what their request for partnerships says:
The City has no preferred business model of operation currently.
However, the City is in a position to articulate a number of Guiding
Principles that can help identify strong partnerships (or equally
importantly partnerships that may not have a good future) early on
the dialog process. These Guiding Principles include:
Ø Equity and a level playing field. It is both the intent and
the obligation of the City to play no favorites and to guarantee a
level playing field to all possible partners. Equally important, the
City intends to deploy services in a way that safeguards social
equity and makes modern services available to all citizens.
Ø In order to become a partner with the City in the
collaborative broadband network, a company or organization should be
prepared to bring an asset to the collaboration. This asset may be
financial, technological or people-based. Examples include pole
mounting rights, technological know-how for system enhancement and
migration, fiber for backhaul and marketing savvy.
Ø Interoperability and Scaleability are two important words
for hardware, software and Orgware (people and administrative issues)
solutions that will be entertained.
Ø Attitude is everything in a partnership; the way that a
potential partner approaches the joint effort well defines the
success of the endeavor, and the City intends to create partnerships
with entities which approach the partnership with a positive, “can
do” attitude.
http://www.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=2512
Becca Vargo Daggett
Seward
Eric Hinsdale
Kingfield
www.erichinsdale.com
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-
democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact
the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/
discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion -
Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
