[IP] City wireless services don't play on level field
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 4, 2004 4:00:24 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] City wireless services don't play on level field
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Note: This item comes to me from Esme Voss of MuniWireless.com. DLH]
Posted on Mon, Oct. 04, 2004
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
City wireless services don't play on level field
<http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9813070.htm>
It sounds enticing: Wireless broadband Internet service at deeply
discounted rates, provided as a municipal utility just like water and
sewer services. Cities large and small are getting into the wireless
Internet business. Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta and L.A. are looking
into it. Here in Minnesota, Buffalo and Chaska already offer it.
So what's not to like about a deal like that? Plenty.
The primary concern is that when governments compete with private
businesses to provide goods and services, they don't do so on a level
playing field. Governments don't pay property taxes on municipal real
estate. They don't pay corporate income taxes, like Charter
Communications, Comcast or Time Warner do. They don't face many of the
regulatory hurdles that private businesses do. They can take land by
eminent domain.
Another factor to keep in mind: "Government" and "cutting edge" are
rarely uttered in the same breath. Government is not known for its
innovation and nimbleness in reaction to market changes.
While municipal wireless systems may start out using cutting-edge
technology and providing services comparable to those provided by cable
and phone companies, history shows that they will struggle to keep up
with the rapidly changing technology. Brad Mayer, Chaska's
information-systems manager, said that the city's 2,000-subscriber
chaska.net will use subscriber revenues to keep the system up to date.
The vendor the city has contracted with has a plan for keeping
chaska.net on the cutting edge. Time will tell. Just up the road in
Buffalo, city residents can subscribe for $30 monthly to wireless
service installed five years ago that offers connection speeds of about
one tenth as fast as those currently offered by cable companies for a
few dollars more a month.
Clearly, some cities can make a compelling case for investing in
wireless Internet systems: rural communities not served by cable or DSL
providers or cities that plan to integrate wireless communications into
their police and fire response systems.
But as a general principle, government should not be competing with
private enterprise to provide non-essential services. It isn't fair
competition.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/