Alex,
I would recommend you read the Philadelphia Wireless business plan. It addresses most (if not all) of your issues below.
Let me comment on a couple of _your_ more specious complaints below:
1) what kills independent ISPs is not cheaper competition (which muni would essentially be), but rather the removal of common access provisions. Perhaps Bway can provide further insight into this, since they have grown their business because of free Wi-Fi in Manhattan.
2) most muni broadband systems _DO NOT_ use taxpayer dollars. This is a common fallacy, and you are just repeating the astroturf arguments that Verizon and Comcast and others are using against muni broadband. For example, in Philadelphia, the non-profit that is being created to operate the muni wireless infrastructure is getting a _LOAN_ from the city, that it will _REPAY_ within 4-5 years. This is the government putting your tax dollars to good use through investment, just like a bank puts your savings to good use through investment. Many other new muni Wi-Fi initiatives require the network builder to _BRING THEIR OWN FUNDING_, so that _NO CITY FUNDS_ are used at all.
Also, there is a common argument that the muni Wi-Fi initiatives will be providing free access to city infrastructure. At least in Philadelphia, this is _FALSE_. The city will license the usage of light poles and other city property to the non-profit, and receive _LICENSE FEES_ for their usage. This is exactly the same type of deal that Comcast or Verizon would get if they tried to do the same thing in Philadelphia, and exactly what they are getting in NYC
3) The point of the library analogy is that providing something for free _DOESN'T_ destroy a market, nor does it put for profit companies out of business. Rather, it creates even more need, but introducing that thing to many people who would otherwise not experience it, and some of those people will upgrade to the for fee version. Perhaps a better example is water service in Manhattan. Far from destroying the for fee market for water, it has actually helped to CREATE A MARKET where companies like Evian and Poland Spring (and lots of other smaller vendors) can sell water. It also created a market for companies like Brita, who provide a service on top of the existing free water service.
5) Cities are not preventing wireless towers; Residents and Landlords are preventing them. Residents don't want big antennas nearby their apartments (and quite frankly, I can understand why), and Landlords want exorbitant prices for their rooftops. Frankly, NYC's approch of lots of much smaller antennas is a much better idea, since it gets around both of these issues.
6) THIS recommendation IS using your tax dollars to compete with yourself. Besides, its just a bad and wildly inefficent idea. Good example of where this type of system goes wrong: School Vouchers. Instead of actually fixing the problem, what you recommend just makes it worse, because now the City has created an even greater dependence upon itself monetarily, and as prices go up, as they always do, the City is burdened further. Besides, this doesn't actually address the issue of how to get underpriviledged people online. How does such a system bring DSL into an area that doesn't have it. How does it create competition that provides service instead of just trying to extract that money from people who have no idea what they are getting?
Alex, while I applaud your trying to start an intelligent discussion on the subject, I would recommend you think through your own beliefs before stating them as fact.
Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.nycwireless.net +1 917 402 0422
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Rob Kelley wrote:
In fact, I'd like to see a state legislature pass a resolution or lawI will probably be flamed here to hell and back, however, in my opinion, muni broadband is completely retarded.
__affirming__ the right of local municipalities to set up low-cost
wireless for their citizens.
1) This will complete destruction of independent ISPs - one of major reasons why we get customers is because we are not the incumbent cable or phone company.
2) At towns with for-fee municipal broadband and independent ISPs -
essentially, my taxes are being used to compete with me. Doesn't anyone think that this is wrong?
3) Your analogy with library is specious. There is a difference between book you own and book you borrowed - you can't enjoy book you have borrowed forever.
4) More correct analogy would be cities running soup kitchens and serving food to citizens, ones who can and can't afford food alike. That would doubtless be an honorable thing, however, not something that is considered reasonable in this country.
5) If cities want to help deployment of wireless broadband, they should not fight the building of wireless towers.
6) If the concern is about poor people not being able to afford internet, provide monetary contribution to them, so they can buy access from anyone else. Or not buy, if the intarweb isn't their thing. But, preserve the choice of providers.
-alex
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
