On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Joe Plotkin wrote:
role of government and our tax dollars in a way I hadnt thought of itEh, its just like another monopoly, compare this with cable and phone
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.
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, IThere's no free reliable wifi anywhere in the market area, so this
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?
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.
This is a misrepresentation, Alex. Right now, we have a number of "stable" means of getting free wi-fi. I say stable, since you are right that it isn't reliable. However, I have spoken to quite a number of people (and some of these are people I work with), who do without ANY broadband because they can suck free wireless off their neighbors. There will always be a significant population who don't need "reliable" the way that you refer to it, and for those and others, today offers enough free wireless coverage. I also speak with other people who use the NYCw parks as their only broadband connection. The parks are very stable and reliable.
Now, the other thing you mention here is also a misrepresentation: the existence of free reliable wifi throughout a city area. Quite frankly, for larger cities, this won't exist for a number of years, if at all. SF, Philly, LA, Boston, are all looking at plans that require some form of subscription. I think the important thing to realize is that any sustainable plan will require subscriptions from the regular users (either paid to city or paid to ISPs who use centralized infrastructure. Free really only comes into play when we're talking about public spaces and transient users (like tourists). Besides, even if there were fully free wi-fi, you would _still_ have a business in providing support (something that all users need, and that you are highly qualified to provide) and added services. And plenty of other things an ISP can provide, like security services, etc.
Bway.net has picked up many customers because we encourage free publicUsing neighbours wifi is not the same as using free service maintained by
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.
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..
Alex, this is only your opinion. You are certainly allowed to it, however don't represent it as fact. There are plenty of examples of systems where this isn't true. Furthermore, most people actually think that public Wi-Fi is _less_ secure than their neighbors free Wi-Fi, which is generally true. I've spoken to people recently who ask me about the security of using Wi-Fi in a park or coffeeshop (Starbucks), and they state that they have no problem using their neighbors wi-fi at home, but are concerned about doing banking and purchasing items using public Wi=Fi.
It is this group of people that are your customers should there be lots of free, public wi-fi. There's lots that you can do for them as an ISP. It may not be exactly what you provide now, but there is still a huge market for your services.
Alternatively, do you have any plans to offer service in NYC as a WISP?As long as its an open network, I don't have a problem with any new builds
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.
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/
Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.nycwireless.net +1 917 402 0422
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
