Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Colorado May Allow Cities To Provide Wifi

Posted by Zonk on Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:59 PM
from the politics-for-the-war-drivers dept.
Wireless Networking Government Hardware Politics
miguelitof writes "According to the TheDenverChannel.com, Colorado cities may soon be able to provide wireless internet service to their citizens. The state Senate will vote today (April 5th) on Colorado Senate Bill 152, which would allow cities to provide wireless internet access. The only proviso would be that cities would have to get approval from voters to use tax dollars. The cost to provide internet access to a 16 square mile area is about $600k. A city could charge as little as $16 a month and cover expenses."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Colorado May Allow Cities To Provide Wifi 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I live in colorado (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:01PM (#12145573)
    And since I had to pay for their stupid stadium that I didn't want, now they can pay for my useful wireless internet access which they may or may not want.

    • Heck yeah (although I wasn't specifically against the stadium). If nothing else this should drive down the costs of cable and DSL.

      • If nothing else this should drive down the costs of cable and DSL.

        Or price them out of the market? OK, prob. not since most of them have other business in the area (phone, cable, etc.) but the costs could just as easily go up (broadband as luxury item.)

    • ...since I had to pay for their stupid stadium that I didn't want

      yes, but a stadium is useful. what possible use could city-wide wireless networking provide? How are you going to get a hot-dog and a $20 dollar beer out of it?

        • Re:I live in colorado (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Golias (176380) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @02:11PM (#12146302)
          i know your being funny but a stadium does do a lot for the local economy.

          Actually, third-party analysis has shown, time and again, that this is BS.

          The net effect of building a major league statium on a state's economy is zero (minus whatever money you throw into the rat-hole.)

          A sports team doesn't bring any money into a state at all. If the team is not there, people just spend their entertainment budget on something else.

          You would actually be better off by randomly selecting 200 locally-owned businesses from the phone book, and handing them all the cash you would have used to build a stadium.

          If a stadium is such a massive boon to a downtown area, let the businesses in that area pitch in and build one. The truth is, it's only a help if they can get somebody else to pay for it.
    • "Jeff Dunn, a spokesman for Qwest, which provides high-speed Internet service, said his company is not worried about competition. He said consumers are more concerned about service, especially when their Internet connection stops working in the middle of the night."

       Really? If Qwest thinks I would suffer worse service under any alternate provider they are seriously delirious. Great job guys, you certainly have my vote :)

    • I live in CO also, & this doesn't justify a TA (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WaxParadigm (311909) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @03:16PM (#12147064)
      I have a couple criteria in determining if something should be provided by the government (i.e. you should be taxed to pay for it). To be justified, it must get a "yes" for both of the following questions.

      1. Is it providing something that cannot be feasibly provided by the private sector?

      I live in Colorado (just outside Fort Collins) and have friends (in Windsor) who use a private wireless ISP. My laptop in my office can see the APs for another wireless ISP (I use cable and also have the choice of DSL from several providers). There is also a local wireless COOP that can service anyone within a 12-25-mile radius (line of site) of Horsetooth Rock. I can think of 10 places in town where I can get free WIFI and several others where I can pay a couple bucks to use their connected computer (i.e. for those who can't afford computers).

      I know people outside of Colorado Springs, on 5-acre lots (so not a density you'd think is attractive to ISPs). They have access to a wireless ISP and a Cable ISP...and there are a couple DSL providers who think they can service them despite the long phone lines.

      I have a friend in **Brush** and even he has high-speed Internet.

      2. Is it important enough that the funding of it should be enforced by law/force (should people be thrown in jail and have their assets forfeited for not funding it)?

      The first question already disqualified this for me, but it fails this question as well. High-speed Internet is nice, but most people can get it anyway. Those who cannot can visit a local coffee house for a couple bucks, or use dial-up.

      Given that we've gotten a "NO" for both of these questions this is not a reasonable place for the government to provide services in.

  • I think the article is mistaken (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phaetonic (621542) * on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:02PM (#12145584)
    With a population of 37,500 sharing a 802.11g connection, I'd hate to think what kind of latency would occur with BitTorrent and gaming...
    • I didn't see where it said 802.11 was the technology there were considering, though it is a possibility. I personally would rather see 802.16 (WiMax). It has a greater distance and more bandwidth. If a city were to build something like this and bring in business to help offset the costs, a wonderful, high speed network could be created with little or no ongoing costs to the public.

    • You could use 3 channels in a grid pattern (Score:4, Informative)

      by melted (227442) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:20PM (#12145760) Homepage
      You could use 3 channels in a grid pattern and place access points so that APs using the same channel cause no interference to each other. Then, you could use some hardcore APs which provide QOS to wireless clients, so if you're running bittorrent, you get 128K download rate, whereas someone just browsing the web would get the rest of the bandwidth. It's all technical problems that can be solved.

  • On the surface... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScooterBill (599835) * on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:04PM (#12145595)
    it sounds like a great idea. However, local governments don't have the same incentives to provide good service at low cost. I would hope that this would still allow private companies to compete.

    Long term, it would be nice to have high speed wireless access everywhere and have this be a public services paid for through taxes. Similar to public restrooms, drinking fountains, parks, etc.
    • Long term, it would be nice to have high speed wireless access everywhere and have this be a public services paid for through taxes. Similar to public restrooms, drinking fountains, parks, etc.

      Yes, except you don't need a relatively expensive device to access public restrooms, parks, and so on. Providing wifi only benefits those who can afford laptops or similar devices, which means the middle class and up.

      Free wifi sounds nice, but like any luxury it should be left to the private sector, who will proba

  • This is a SHOCK and a SHAME. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ShaniaTwain (197446) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:04PM (#12145597) Homepage
    Public tax dollars should NEVER go to provide useful services to the people. Sounds suspiciously like communism to me. What about the poor companies? Its a slippery slope people, next thing you know the government will be picking up garbage and paving streets! Stop it now before its too late!
    • Garbage collection and street repair is often subconracted. I have no problem with cities providing free wi-fi if hey subcontract the work out. However, I do have a problem with government running or becoming a business entity, especially when tax dollars are used.

    • The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShatteredDream (636520) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:15PM (#12145699) Homepage
      of what happens when the government locks out private competition and runs its own service. It costs $0.37 to send a single letter and by law, UPS and Fedex cannot send first class mail. So what that means is that you have to pay more for a service the government provides because it doesn't give you a choice. It's either the government's service or no service at all.

      Where I live in Virginia, you can get free or low cost WiFi in any of the coffee shops, and eventually other places will no doubt start providing it. I don't want my local government providing socialized WiFi in my area because local governments are notorious for being inept at spending control and quality of service. I'd rather pay adelphia for my access, have a wireless router on the connection and be able to go to a coffee shop and get free when I'm out and about. Barnes & Nobles' starbucks cafe charges $4.00 for 2 hours, but it's a good quality of service.

      Next thing you know, though, it won't be the government picking up trash, but government telling you that you cannot compete with it. That's the way it works. There is nothing that pissess off government bureaucrats than the idea that the citizenry can go elsewhere and completely ignore them.

      Oh and add in the fact that government-run Wifi will probably be completely open to law enforcement since it's a government service, not a private service. Watch the local cops argue that since it is a government utility, they don't need a warrant to log every action you take and periodically scan through them for criminal violations. That's one thing you really don't ever have to worry about the private sector allowing.

      • It costs $0.37 to send a single letter and by law, UPS and Fedex cannot send first class mail. So what that means is that you have to pay more for a service the government provides because it doesn't give you a choice. It's either the government's service or no service at all.

        The U.S. also has the cheapest, fastest, and most reliable post service in the world by most accounts, and this will still be true/would still be true today if postage were fifty cents. If the USPS is an example of what happens w

      • I used to work at UPS (in the accounting office). At that time, and probably still, UPS and FedEx were required to have their rates (within the US, at least) approved by the U.S. Postal Service, which kept those rates artificially high.
        Not, I think, that UPS or FedEx ever object too much to that.
        If the Federal government were not orchistrating this scheme, it would be an illegal trust (cartel?).
      • It costs $0.37 to send a single letter

        Horrors!

        and by law, UPS and Fedex cannot send first class mail. So what that means is that you have to pay more for a service the government provides because it doesn't give you a choice. It's either the government's service or no service at all.

        So what? All I want is a cheap, reliable service. Looks like I've got that....

        --Bruce Fields

        • Re:So is Amtrak (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Amtrak is also a good example, for the same reasons you cited. Amtrak trains are notoriously late, and very outdated.

          Amtrak is the result of the Federal Government stepping in to keep service from dying. Amtrak was created because the passenger rail service couldn't compete on a for-profit basis between expanding air travel and post-interstate road travel. The idea was to preserve a service for the citizens of this country and keep at least the spectre of competetion in the medium and long distance mass
          • If you come to my club and I say you must pay me 10% of your earnings if you want to stay at my club, I'm not stealing 10% of your earnings. Even if you argue, well that 10% goes towards the swimming pool and the hot tub, and frankly, I can't swim so I won't be using those, therefore I won't pay that. I have the right to kick you out or have you arrested for trespassing if you refuse to pay. Same deal, you live in the US, you get benefit from the services, you pay the taxes. Frankly, I'm not even sure w

  • $16 / month? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheFlyingGoat (161967) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:08PM (#12145626) Homepage Journal
    I live in Milwaukee, which is approximately 16 square miles. Within that 16 square mile area, there are around 600,000 residents (talking City of Milwaukee, not the metro area). If the cost to provide wireless runs $600K/month, that comes to $1/citizen/month. Even if you guess that it would cost 10 times as much (given the way our local government works ;), that's still only $10/month. Where is that $16/m figure coming from?

  • Wi-fi Vs Mesh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by earthstar (748263) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:09PM (#12145636) Journal
    So still wifi is being provided in latest rollouts of wireless interent?

    Whatever happened to the concept of Mesh Networks , that sprovide high speed higher security Internet that was seen as a bettet alternative to WiFI ?

    Infact I read in SPECTRUM that it has already been implemented in Vegas.

  • My economics is a little fuzzy but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scovetta (632629) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:11PM (#12145662) Homepage
    A city could charge as little as $16 a month and cover expenses.

    Wouldn't that depend on the size of the city and how many people would actually want to pay $16/month?

    Or did they mean, $16/month total, for everyone?</not-really-a-serious-question>

  • So... cheap phone service too? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by popo (107611) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:13PM (#12145686) Homepage

    It should also be noted that free wifi has an immediate upshot of mass conversion to VOIP.

    Adding to that: Wifi handhelds are around the corner -- which means that cellphone (and landline) carriers have a lot to worry about.

  • Allow Cities? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Valiss (463641) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:19PM (#12145743) Homepage
    ...which would allow cities to provide wireless internet access.

    This makes it sound like it is currently illegal to do this. Is it illegal in Colorado to have a city set up a wireless network?

    • Re:Allow Cities? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chyeld (713439) <chyeldNO@SPAMnewsguy.com> on Tuesday April 05 2005, @02:03PM (#12146211)
      It's illegal in most places for municipalities to provide comercial services unless those services are considered of essential public value and not suitable for comercial involvement. That's why most utility companies are run by companies who purchase a contract from the company rather than the company itself.

  • Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pauljlucas (529435) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:19PM (#12145749) Homepage Journal
    Why are many cities so interested in providing free/cheap WiFi access? Telephones and cable TV have been around much longer and you don't see cities rushing to provide free land-line phones or cable TV.

    I personally don't want any of my tax dollars used to fund any free/cheap technological service to anybody. Cities should just stick to funding the police, fire, water, and grounds maintenance, i.e., the traditional stuff cities are supposed to fund.

    • How do you define what a city should and should not provide for its citizens? Things that have been around the longest? Things that aren't technologically based? Police, fire, water, etc use a good deal of technology to perform their services. Is it really wrong for a city to want to provide services for its citizenry? Isn't that the purpose of government in the first place?

      Is it inherently fair or unfair for a city to subsidize the cost of trash collection? My family has payed a seperate service to pi

    • One interesting thing to note is that the Founding Fathers felt that it was necessary for the Federal legislature "To establish Post Offices and post Roads", which at the time was the cutting-edge of communication. It appears that they did not trust the free market as much as some do today.
    • This Slashdot posting is actually misleading. The intent of the legislation is to CREATE obstacles that don't currently exist to PREVENT communities from creating any sort of broadband services by creating a number of extra citizen-approval hoops to jump through. This showed up in Slashdot about a month ago as a news item of many states simultaneously proposing legislation to create these road blocks.

      By wording this now in newspaper articles as "cities will now be able to offer Wifi if they first do X, Y,

  • Wardriving the Colonies (Score:3, Funny)

    by werewolf1031 (869837) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:19PM (#12145756) Homepage
    Car keys: Check.
    Cigarette lighter adapter: Check.

    Now, dammit, SOMEbody in this town has got to have that last episode of Battlestar Galactica...

  • My family has a cabin that's up a private road on the southern slope of Twin Sisters mountain, just outside Rocky Mountain National Park in Roosevelt National Forest. Technically the address is in Allenspark, a while south of Estes Park on the Peak to Peak, though we're a long hike over the highway and up the mountain from town.

    Our hillside association has had this WiFi thing come up a few times. Someone down in Allenspark proper has been encouraging the town to try to get some sort of WiFi arrangement go

  • www.chaska.net (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:22PM (#12145776)
    The city I live in is already establishing WiFi. The ISP involved made a deal with the local utilities and the city to use the municipal vehicals and stree/power poles already setup. In return, the city gets WiFi access for the police cars and some other benefits.
    They are only charging $15.99 a month, and it can be included right in the utilities bill.
    Speeds still leave a bit to be desired, as they didn't use one of the better technologies, but they are working on it. I've had speeds up to 900kbps on occasion, but average seems more like 3-400kbps.
    Oh, I can also loggin with just my wireless connection on the laptop and not need their router too, so I can go to the local coffee shops that don't have WiFi available. :)

  • All you people think this is great and all (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hsmith (818216) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:32PM (#12145871)
    But how many government programs have been a success? They will mess this up, you can bet the farm on it. Governments made this mess in the first place by signing exclusive deals with only one provider and providing them with a monopoly. now look at what they are doing.

    this will end up a mess.

  • Muni Competition (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @02:35PM (#12146594) Homepage Journal
    The "High Tech Broadband Coalition" has published their "Policy Position on Municipal Broadband" [siliconinvestor.com]. Briefly, they support municipal efforts to ensure universal broadband access, even if the city has to provide broadband itself. Consisting of the BSA, CEA, NAM, SIA, ITI, and TLA, the position is important, if not completely surprising. But the TIA, which represents telcos who compete with these municipal efforts, is very surprising as a member of the coalition. TIA members are busy buying legislators to keep municipal competition out, while their trade org is promoting keeping city governments in. Are Mark Cuban's complaints about the RIAA misrepresenting his content corp starting to sound familiar?
  • I was thinking about the recent conflict between municipal and commercial Internet access providers. Government-owned Internet access that blankets an area, whether it be via wireless or fiber-optic cable or something equally useful, is a great thing to have from a property-values and quality-of-life standpoint (hence the city's motivation to build it). However, it obviously competes against commercial ISP's, which (rightfully) feel undercut by the government.

    How about this compromise:

    Government-owned ISP's focus on doing what they do best: building out infrastructure and reaching through the unprofitable "last mile" to get all customers -- not just the most desirable large corporations or dense urban populations -- hooked up. The purpose of this infrastructure would be to transparently pass packets through, acting as a pipe between their customers and the Internet.

    Commercial ISP's focus on providing content and configuring the network to deliver that content. IP address assignment (DHCP), provisioning of subnets, useful servers (email, web hosting, newsgroups), etc. would be handled by competing commercial ISP's. All the various levels and varieties of access found today would still be available: customers could choose to pay extra for a static IP, or certain premium content, or whatever else strikes their fancy. All of this content would be delivered via the municipal infrastructure! Both commercial and government play useful parts here.

    Do you think this compromise would actually work in practice? I'd love to see it given a chance somewhere....

  • I'm in CO...this doesn't justify a TAX. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WaxParadigm (311909) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @03:11PM (#12147020)
    I have a couple criteria in determining if something should be provided by the government (i.e. you should be taxed to pay for it). To be justified, it must get a "yes" for both of the following questions.

    1. Is it providing something that cannot be feasibly provided by the private sector?

    I live in Colorado (just outside Fort Collins) and have friends (in Windsor) who use a private wireless ISP because they are out of range for DSL and cable. My laptop in my office can see the APs for another wireless ISP (I use cable and also have the choice of DSL from several providers). There is also a local wireless COOP that can service anyone within a 12-25-mile radius (line of site) of Horsetooth Rock. I can think of 10 places in town where I can get free WIFI and several others where I can pay a couple bucks to use their connected computer (i.e. for those who can't afford computers).

    2. Is it important enough that the funding of it should be enforced by law/force (should people be thrown in jail and have their assets forfeited for not funding it)?

    The first question already disqualified this for me, but it fails this question as well. High-speed Internet is nice, but most people can get it anyway. Those who cannot can visit a local coffee house for a couple bucks, or use dial-up.

    Given that we've gotten a "NO" for both of these questions this is not a reasonable place for the government to provide services in.
  • Stevenson near where I live set up a free wifi mesh [locustworld.com] with funding from the local chamber of commerce. I can easily believe that by putting this sort of stuff in you can increase property values by more than enough to warrent the investment. Folks that don't like this-well they can buy property in a city that doesn't provide taxpayer supported wifi. This stuff is for a city infrastructure just like free drinking fountains-or free sidewalks. Probably one of the best things a city can do to spur economic development.

  • Colorado Telecom Bill (SB 05-152) IS POOPY... (Score:3, Informative)

    by old_ranger (873655) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @03:59PM (#12147650)
    and I'll tell you why. THis is QWEST and the CO Telecom Assoc. getting a bill passed that PREVENTS local gov from doing what they NEED to do when QWEST WONT DO IT! Fact is it has alays been legal for CO local govs to build their own infrastructure nd offer it to the public if they wanted to. NOW, if this bill gets passed, there will be unreasonable restrictions to that activity. Some IDIOT at assocaited press failed to research before publishing, and spn it to look ike the bill ALLOWS, when it really RESTRICTS. And, for all you snivelling ninnies that want to "keep gov out of telecom" let me tell you the TRUTH: YOU live in a CITY. WE live in the STICKS, and no major telecom will build the infrastructure to serve us, because they dont care about us, because the "subscriber density" is too low. This is a typical reaction from a bunch of know nothing metro geekamo elitists that have never considered what it must be like to live in a rural area and be underserved in all areas of service that are taken for granted in cities. Anyway, if you live in COlorado, CALL YOUR LEGISLATOR and tell him/her to vote NO on SB 05-152. If you live in another state, you'll get your chance because the telecom lobby is gunning for you too, to restrict your right to do what you want, in all states. HERE is TRUTH: http://www.ruralcolorado.org/index.php?option=cont ent&task=view&id=275&Itemid=2 [ruralcolorado.org] read it, know it, live it. Sincerely, Old Ranger in Colorado
    • Ultimately it was ruled that the citizens should be able to vote for wether their tax dollers got used for it. Of course everyone there wants this new store to open.

      I've never voted on handing over public tax money to corporations. Nobody ever asked me if I want to give money to a store to open in my neighborhood. I wish they would, I'd like the oppertunity to vote.

      I was reading Wallmart has over $1 billion dollars in tax dollars from all of us. That is money we pay to government that is handed over

        • Um, no. If a Colorado city wants to build a wifi network, we can vote on it.

          Proving once again that direct democracy can be defined as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."
    • Yeah, companies never cut costs (HUGE lay-offs, cuts in benifits, etc, while the Exec's raise their own pay and keep customer prices exactly the same).

      Nope.., Never happens...

      Of course, less than one minute on google will show you news article after news article that proves the opposite, but hey, this is Slashdot, so lets ignore all the facts, eh?

    • Re:Some services were made for government (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday April 05 2005, @01:26PM (#12145809) Homepage
      You make a good point, but "lower costs than any business could" seems a red herring to me. It's the same red herring that all the opponents of this bill use -- the idea that the government is going to be competing with businesses and have an unfair advantage over them.

      While implementations may vary, I highly doubt that the government is going to be in the business of building wi-fi equipment, routers, etc. They are going to hire other companies to do this. They are going to hire other companies to do maintenance when necessary, and they are eventually going to have to pay an ISP to connect their wi-fi service to the Internet.

      What this means is that there is going to be plenty of opportunity for businesses to make money providing wi-fi service to a city.

      Of course they might not make as much money as they would charging monthly service fees to individuals in the city, because the city has collective bargaining power. Boo hoo. They know that the government is not going to be competing with them per se, but rather limiting their ability to gouge customers. They're just using the "competition" argument to invoke the name of Capitalism in the same cynical way that patriotism is invoked to get us to agree with things that have nothing to do with patriotism.

      Always be wary of a large corporate/government entity that says that you should not be able to pool your resources with others and thus enjoy the same benefits as they do. Always be wary of anyone whose definition of a level playing field is the status quo with them holding all the advantages.
    • Why is it every knee jerk reactionary opinion like this gets modded up on slashdot.

      Fuck moderators the first "fact/link" isn't even remotely accurate. SF wants to moderate blogs used for electioneering where people are paid. This is no different than moderation of printed campaign materials. ... and to the second, if they wanted the FBI could watch your wired connection just *as* easy. Do you really think it is hard to get a federal wire tap against a private citizen?

      Why don't you try being more informed

    • "Not to mention fact that the FBI can hack a wireless net in 3 minutes, so they'd never need to get a wiretap order to watch what you do..."

      That makes about as much sense as saying "Policemen can manipulate doorknobs, so if a door is unlocked there is no need for them to get a search warrant." Your phone system transmits everything unencrypted, and yet they're still required to get a wiretap before listening in on it. The barrier to wiretapping is legal, not physical.

      I'm a bit skeptical of government

    • AFAIK, this has only been proposed in places where no company is offering a viable wireless solution.

      And it would appear that the public voted on the issue and approved the concept. Thus, their tax dollars are being spent on what they want. The local government is spending public money on the public. I think that's one of the basic tenants of democracy.

      I might be cause for worry if the government were massively deploying ISPs, thereby shutting down legitimate companies, but so far that doesn't look like i

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.