On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Dana Spiegel wrote:
> I would recommend you read the Philadelphia Wireless business plan. It
> addresses most (if not all) of your issues below.
Why is everyone pointing at "philadelphia business plan" instead of
pointing at the *existing* muni deployments which are nothing like that?
> 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.
I don't think you can speak for ISPs. Joe can, but not you. :)
> 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.
Who defines what good investment is? Why shouldn't city invest in Pilosoft
or bway.net instead? I swear its also a good investment. The argument that
government has a right to tax me and "invest" my money for me is also
flawed - I prefer to invest that money myself. Investing my tax dollars in
order to compete with me is no different than plainly spending those same
dollars - there is no level playing field.
> 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
The way NYC is planning to do this is *not* the same. I wish nycwireless
participants wouldn't confuse various business plans. NYC will license the
access to poles to a company. (NOT a non-profit, by the way!) That's the
only thing in your statement that is correct. Now, this said company is
under absolutely no obligations to provide 'common access'. (Read the
business plan). Most likely, the end result will be just another monopoly
("wifi monopoly") which will compete with other monopolies (the phone
company, the cable company).
> 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.
I like the analogy with food service a lot more. The water service is
is distinctly different in many ways from buying bottled water. The free
wifi is no different than wifi you pay for.
> 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.
That's a NIMBY syndrome that is a cause of dilapidated power grid among
other things. This is where government intervention is proper - city
should preempt local regulations and allow "reasonable" construction
without regard to local opposition - something that's hopefully will be
done with regard to power lines.
> 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.
See above. Please don't confuse three different things:
a) what existing munies have done (free wifi to residents, complete
end-to-end). I am very much against that, it is taking my money to compete
with me.
b) Philly business plan. I have no problem with that.
c) proposed NYC licensing of poles/etc. I have a problem with that - the
licensee has no obligation to provide open access ("transport") to
interested providers at reasonable rates.
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
