Should WiFi Be Public Infrastructure? (continued)

I blogged about Philly making Wifi free throughout the city back in early September.

Today I read that San Francisco is doing the same thing.

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom today said the city plans to launch citywide free WiFi access. Speaking at his annual state of the city address, Newsom said, "No San Franciscan should be without a computer and a broadband connection." San Francisco will eventually deploy free WiFi access throughout the city's public buildings and public spaces. Newsom said the city has already launched free WiFi service at Union Square, a shopping and tourist hub. The city plans to soon add WiFi access to several other sections of the city, including Civic Center around City Hall. San Francisco is the latest urban center to announce plans for a citywide wireless network. Both New York and Philadelphia have announced initiatives to launch WiFi hotzones.

It's happening. Wifi is going to be public infrastructure like roads, tunnels, and bridges.

Comments

[Chris]

According to Time, Spokane might be an addition to your list.

[Kunal Anand]

Add Los Angeles - I heard it on public radio a few days ago on my morning commute. Yes, WiFi is becoming part of public infrastructure, which also means that there are inherent cost issues in regards to maintenance.

Cement doesn't change every few months; technology does. So what happens when a new standard for WiFi is created - how do cities and states come up with a way to upgrade those services? Notwithstanding, it's certainly a leap ahead in the right direction.

[Spassmeister]

Is this a business that should be a part of local governments? Roads, parks, sidewalks, etc., have remained in the public domain while airlines, telephone networks and other technology services have moved to the private sector. What's the 10 year TCO for these projects per access point...and...who is going to pay long term?

[Ken Liffiton]

In the short term, free WiFi will be great to have. I remember wandering around San Francisco on a recent trip looking for free WiFi without much luck, and finally paying up to Starbucks+Tmobile.

However, I agree that the speed of technological change is a big issue. I wonder whether WiFi is even the right technology to jump on. WiMax is around the corner. It's built as a "last-mile" connection, which is what the cities are trying to use WiFi for. WiMax has greater speed and at least a three-mile range (compared to a few hundred feet for WiFi.) It should be in portable devices starting in 2006.

While the cost per WiMax access point would likely be higher than for WiFi, far fewer access points would be required. This could reduce maintenance costs and make the service practical for mobile users -- less need to "hand off" the signal, if that's even possible with WiFi.

(Taking this a step further, broadly deployed, free WiMax networks could mean that not only could everybody have their own printing press, but they could have their own TV/radio station with the same potential distribution as the traditional players. Where would that lead?)

Of course, maybe something even better/cheaper/faster is coming after WiMax. It's a tough choice, but I hope that cities are looking at the long-term picture before they jump into an investment like this.

[BZ]

As a WiFi user, I applaud these developments. As a taxpayer, I don't want city government in this business, at least not until the technology gets closer to standardized and the infrastructure more well established.

In SF and Dallas the last two weeks, I had trouble connecting in hotel rooms and airports, let alone in public areas. I shudder to think what might happen when WiFi is in the hands of incompetent municipalities.

Successful efforts such as NYC's Bryant Park hotspot tend to be projects supported by non-profits as labors of love, not infrastructure. It's bad enough waiting for Windows XP to find and connect with nearby networks. Don't make us wait in line downtown at the Department of WiFi for an operator's license!