0
Is it time for a municipal wireless service?
03 October 2005
Should a municipal wireless network be a public service or kept private? Should it be a municipal utility – or is that just an exercise in futility?
Public broadband is a hot debate in the USA, where some cities have decided to create community-wide wireless access as a public service.
Typically, there are forces acting to stop them. Representative Pete Sessions (a former executive with Bell and Southwestern Bell) doesn’t think state or local governments should be in the broadband business. He proposed the “Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act (H.R. 2726)” under which state and local governments are prohibited from offering telecommunications, telecommunications services, information services or cable service in any area in which a private entity is already offering a similar service.
When Philadelphia’s city government was considering launching their own wireless network to compete with local service providers, Republicans in the state legislature reacted quickly to preserve private interests. Last December Pennsylvania passed a law restricting municipal-backed broadband services, although Philadelphia received an exemption to allow the city to sell its wireless broadband service, while providing free access in public spaces.
New York, Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco have also pushed forward plans for city-run and operated wi-fi access as essential requirements for citizens in the 21st century. One of their main arguments is that a municipal service would make high-speed Internet access affordable in poor neighborhoods, as well as providing a potential revenue source for the city.
Aggressive lobbying campaigns by telecommunications providers has stalled this initiative in many cities.
Supporters argue that Internet connectivity has become an essential service for banking, health care, information and education, government services. They say that ensuring a community enjoys affordable access is a necessity, not a luxury.
Critics cite public sector bureaucracy as an anchor to efficiency and warn of escalating costs and budget over-runs.
In June, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, supported the telecommunication lobbyists, and signed a law prohibiting Florida cities from offering broadband if competitive services already exist.
Proponents, on the other hand, point to the success of Chaska, Minnesota, a small – but rapidly growing - town of 18,000 that has created an efficient and cost-effective municipal wi-fi service (see www.corante.com/vision/wireless/chaska.php).
Chaska’s service went live last November, and quickly attracted more than 2,000 paying subscribers – better than one in ten. The service is now a “quality of life” bragging point for the town.
It makes me wonder if such a service would also work in small towns or cities across Canada. The federal initiative to connect all of Canada with high speed has sputtered and died. The last federal budget did not mention broadband and barely mentioned the previously promised e-government services.
Maybe Chaska’s model would work for us here.
Keep in mind that Canada pioneered the public hydro utility in 1906, when Adam Beck, a provincial cabinet minister from London, Ontario, introduced a bill to create the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
Beck vigorously fought corporate interests who schemed to keep electricity in private hands. His fight for a public utility led to the world's largest public utility and eventually gave us the electricity we enjoy across the province. Whether Beck would consider Hydro One a success or failure is for another column.
In 2003, Statistics Canada reported 86 per cent of Canadians have access to broadband services. However, only 28 per cent of Canadian communities have access to broadband, most of them urban - rural communities in Canada still lag behind in broadband access.
I think it’s time our own municipalities stepped into the issue and took a serious look at wi-fi as another public sector service. I think Collingwood should become Canada's "Chaska."
Public broadband is a hot debate in the USA, where some cities have decided to create community-wide wireless access as a public service.
Typically, there are forces acting to stop them. Representative Pete Sessions (a former executive with Bell and Southwestern Bell) doesn’t think state or local governments should be in the broadband business. He proposed the “Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act (H.R. 2726)” under which state and local governments are prohibited from offering telecommunications, telecommunications services, information services or cable service in any area in which a private entity is already offering a similar service.
When Philadelphia’s city government was considering launching their own wireless network to compete with local service providers, Republicans in the state legislature reacted quickly to preserve private interests. Last December Pennsylvania passed a law restricting municipal-backed broadband services, although Philadelphia received an exemption to allow the city to sell its wireless broadband service, while providing free access in public spaces.
New York, Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco have also pushed forward plans for city-run and operated wi-fi access as essential requirements for citizens in the 21st century. One of their main arguments is that a municipal service would make high-speed Internet access affordable in poor neighborhoods, as well as providing a potential revenue source for the city.
Aggressive lobbying campaigns by telecommunications providers has stalled this initiative in many cities.
Supporters argue that Internet connectivity has become an essential service for banking, health care, information and education, government services. They say that ensuring a community enjoys affordable access is a necessity, not a luxury.
Critics cite public sector bureaucracy as an anchor to efficiency and warn of escalating costs and budget over-runs.
In June, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, supported the telecommunication lobbyists, and signed a law prohibiting Florida cities from offering broadband if competitive services already exist.
Proponents, on the other hand, point to the success of Chaska, Minnesota, a small – but rapidly growing - town of 18,000 that has created an efficient and cost-effective municipal wi-fi service (see www.corante.com/vision/wireless/chaska.php).
Chaska’s service went live last November, and quickly attracted more than 2,000 paying subscribers – better than one in ten. The service is now a “quality of life” bragging point for the town.
It makes me wonder if such a service would also work in small towns or cities across Canada. The federal initiative to connect all of Canada with high speed has sputtered and died. The last federal budget did not mention broadband and barely mentioned the previously promised e-government services.
Maybe Chaska’s model would work for us here.
Keep in mind that Canada pioneered the public hydro utility in 1906, when Adam Beck, a provincial cabinet minister from London, Ontario, introduced a bill to create the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
Beck vigorously fought corporate interests who schemed to keep electricity in private hands. His fight for a public utility led to the world's largest public utility and eventually gave us the electricity we enjoy across the province. Whether Beck would consider Hydro One a success or failure is for another column.
In 2003, Statistics Canada reported 86 per cent of Canadians have access to broadband services. However, only 28 per cent of Canadian communities have access to broadband, most of them urban - rural communities in Canada still lag behind in broadband access.
I think it’s time our own municipalities stepped into the issue and took a serious look at wi-fi as another public sector service. I think Collingwood should become Canada's "Chaska."
