On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Joe Plotkin wrote: > role of government and our tax dollars in a way I hadnt thought of it > before. Which is: is there only one correct model for muni wifi? > Unfortunately, I think you want to have it both ways, which I do find > problematic. What I mean is this: if a municipality provides free wifi, > then you object because, you say, they give away what you charge for > (another point I'll disagree with later). However, if they put it out to > the highest bidder (NYC lightpoles), which is less onerous on taxpayers, > you decry it as shutting you out. Eh, its just like another monopoly, compare this with cable and phone service. There's no big problem if city-sanctioned (or funded) monopoly is an open service, where anyone can use it with few restrictions.
> I agree that the open model (Philly), allowing all ISPs to provide > services is the best model. However, far more urgently, that model > should be applied to all last mile RBOC wireline facilities. > Especially fiber. As Im sure you know too well, the FCC has decreed > otherwise, I believe to the detriment of our economy overall, and ISPs > specifically. That is true lock out from an essential facility and > unfair in the extreme. Because we've allowed private control of public > telecom infrastructure, which was built as regulated monopoly, a public > trust. Oh absolutely. > In contrast to the re-monopolization of the wireline first/last mile, I > dont think muni wireless is a threat to Pilosoft or Bway because they > will not be giving away what we charge for. Will they have full > coverage? Not any time soon, if ever. Tech support? email accounts? IP > address? Despite your valiant arguments, I think my public library > analogy still holds. Yeah, you are right, some rich people will eat for > free (or read every new book for free), when they really should be our > paying customers. But I ask you, how many customers has Pilosoft lost to > free wifi? Now how many to cheap cable or Vz offers? There's no free reliable wifi anywhere in the market area, so this question *now* is premature. I'll tell you that we both will lose a large portion of our market if free reliable wifi becomes standard. > Bway.net has picked up many customers because we encourage free public > wifi sharing of their DSL connection. We haven't lost a single customer > who said they could get their neighbors wifi signal instead. Cable? > Lots. Vz? Lots more. Using neighbours wifi is not the same as using free service maintained by the city. "joe sixpack" wouldn't use their neighbours wifi because of possible security and reliability concerns, but they'd use city-ran wifi in a heartbeat.. > Alternatively, do you have any plans to offer service in NYC as a WISP? > If we gave folks Internet coupons (like food stamps) would you be > building in these under-served nabes? Personally, I dont see a > profitable business model -- so I see an important opportunity for > government, perhaps with help from non-profits like NYCwireless, to step > in and provide basic connectivity. As long as its an open network, I don't have a problem with any new builds funded by my tax dollars. You of all people should recognize danger of building yet another sanctioned closed monopoly. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
