Colorado May Allow Cities To Provide Wifi 311
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."
I live in colorado (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I live in colorado (Score:2)
Re:I live in colorado (Score:2)
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.)
Re:I live in colorado (Score:2)
Re:I live in colorado (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:I live in colorado (Score:2)
This line is a Gem (Score:2)
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
Re:I live in colorado (Score:2)
As to the wireless internet access, the state is targeting small areas. Rifle is a good example. They now do wifi because nobody else would. Wifi is a good way to get moderate bandwidth to homes/businesses in a cost effective fashion due to the distances between homes that are outside of metropolitians
I live in CO also, & this doesn't justify a TA (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:I think the article is mistaken (Score:2, Interesting)
You could use 3 channels in a grid pattern (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You could use 3 channels in a grid pattern (Score:2)
For how much more $$$? I'm not sure where the originator came up with the 600k number, but at the pace of technology change two questions come up right away:
Re:You could use 3 channels in a grid pattern (Score:2)
Given the simplicity of an individual node, I don't see why a government-run program couldn't react quickly, provided they used commodity h
On the surface... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:On the surface... (Score:2)
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
Re:On the surface... (Score:2)
and how many tax breaks, rezoning exemptions, eminent domain actions and anti-competitive laws will it take to provide this "zero cost" service?
Also, relatively expensive is well...relative. Television and phones were expensive at one time. Now you can buy a decent wi-fi equiped laptop for under a thousand bucks and a wi-fi equipped PDA for a few hundred. They are becoming a commodity
Re:On the surface... (Score:2)
However, you do need a relatively expensive device, plus relatively expensive insurance, to access most public roads, rest stops, and so on..
Re:On the surface... (Score:2)
The fact that governments have spent money unwisely in the past does not justify them spending it unwisely in the future.
Re:On the surface... (Score:2)
I believe governmental entrance into this market will have the effect of raising the bar for everybody.
In effect, everybody wins!
Re:On the surface... (Score:2)
OK, *you* volunteer to answer the phones at your city councilperson's office the next time a router goes down.
I don't see why not. But I also don't see that the private companies who own the most extensive already-established last-mile networks (and, sometimes, the content distributed over those networks too!) have the right incentives ei
Re:On the surface... (Score:2, Funny)
This is a SHOCK and a SHAME. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a SHOCK and a SHAME. (Score:2)
The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:2)
After all, we need to stop piracy and protect children from all those bad pictures. You're not for piracy and against children, are you Mister Councilman?
I guaran-damn-tee you that the moment the government has an ISP monopoly, somebody is going to decide that it's their place
Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:2)
It's the part that comes later. The USPS did not always outlaw other people from delivering First Class mail, either.
Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm inclined to agree that there's little reason to leave the Post Office in the hands of government. On the other hand, I'm skeptical of the claim that privatizing would immediately lead to increased efficiency. More likely, it would simply replace a government monopoly with a private oligopoly.
Only two plans make sense to me: either the USPS is sold in its entirety to a single private organization, or it's divvied up amon
Worse than that (Score:3, Insightful)
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?).
Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example... (Score:3, Insightful)
Horrors!
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)
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
Re:This is a SHOCK and a SHAME. (Score:2)
I suppose the gas station steals from you, but generously provides you will gasoline. Have you ever driven on a city street? Have you ever gone to a park? Oh, nevermind, you probably haven't left that basement in twenty-five years.
Taxes are payments to cover services provided, learn to deal with it!
Re:This is a SHOCK and a SHAME. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a SHOCK and a SHAME. (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the government should build and maintain roads, provide domestic security (police, essentially) so that we are not in d
$16 / month? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$16 / month? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$16 / month? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.internest.com/city/milwaukeewi.asp [internest.com]
http://www.internest.com/city/denverco.asp [internest.com]
So Denver would be $2/person. I actually think the population density of the states would be similar, given the fact that the upper half of Wisconsin is very midly populated (it's all forest) and the lower half just has a few bigger cities (Milwaukee, Madison) with the rest being farmland and glacial land.
Re:$16 / month? (Score:2)
3,700 people/sq mi X 16 sq mi = 59200 people
$600,000 / 59200 people = $10.14 / person
Not $1 or $2. Allowing for the fact that not everyone will sign up (such as children) and some people will share a connection and $16 is pretty reasonable.
Re:$16 / month? (Score:2)
Re:$16 / month? (Score:2)
I dunno, but it's not from the $600K. The submitter failed to mention that the $600K figure is the setup cost and has nothing to do with the monthly cost of providing the service.
Re:$16 / month? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm all for "free" WiFi for areas like this, but charging only those who live in that zone is not the way to go. It indirectly benefits the whole metro area. Widen the tax base and then you only charge pennies a month. Obviously, if there are only geog
Wi-fi Vs Mesh (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wi-fi Vs Mesh (Score:2)
My economics is a little fuzzy but... (Score:3, Insightful)
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>
Economics are good! (Score:2)
This is no different to me than a university buying a HUGE satelite dish and buying cable programming directly from vendors. When I was in student government, we voted on what channels we wanted to buy. I remember cnn was something like $0.02 per person, sci-fi was a dime, we even got HBO for a dollar a person. All the others, TBS and MTV and USAnetwork were all under a dime each, some under a nickle. The whole budget of
Tax Dollars? I want Tax pounds spent on it (Score:2, Insightful)
So... cheap phone service too? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So... cheap phone service too? (Score:2)
Re:So... cheap phone service too? (Score:2)
Re:So... cheap phone service too? (Score:2)
Cell and landline carriers SHOULD FEAR VOIP and other new tech. They should either toss their chips onto the table, or get the hell out of the game. I want my goddam flying cars, and I won't wait any longer, if I have to build 'em myself!
Re:So... cheap phone service too? (Score:2)
Allow Cities? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Not illegal (Score:2)
Re:Allow Cities? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Allow Cities? (Score:2)
Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:2)
Because it takes a lot more time, money, and manpower to dig holes, run cable, and string wires for line based services (CATV and telephone) than it does for wireless based services such as Internet.
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:2)
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:2)
Recreational/information services such as cable TV or internet access are not essential. Therefore, a city should not provide them. (Emergency 911 service is guaranteed through state law even if you don't otherwise have phone service.)
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:2)
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Cigarette lighter adapter: Check.
Now, dammit, SOMEbody in this town has got to have that last episode of Battlestar Galactica...
A local story, from the mountains (Score:2)
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)
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.
Why did they need a law? (Score:2)
All you people think this is great and all (Score:3, Insightful)
this will end up a mess.
Re:All you people think this is great and all (Score:2, Interesting)
How many software projects are a success?
Answer 1 in 10.
I could draw this conclusion.
Don't get into software.
But when I compare the two statements
I tend to believe that many projects just fail in general.
It doesn't matter what category they're in.
SB 152 restricts municipal wifi you twit (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=CO [freepress.net]
SB 152 was a POS legislation from the get-go, and many of us Coloradoans have been actively lobbying against it. State senator Jennifer Viega threw this gem together to pay back the telcos that financed her campaign. While the revised bill passed is better than the original, it's still bad news for municipal services.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/arti cle/0,1299,DRMN_38_3545616,00.html [rockymountainnews.com]
Quick math... (Score:2)
According to the estimates and data above, Jersey City residents could have wifi for $0.26 a month. Over 60 cities can do it for less than $5 per month, including Philadelphia, which is aiming
Is that really how it works there? (Score:2)
Why do you bother with a City administration then?
Look at the conformist policestaters whining! (Score:2)
cultists!
Don't worry, cultist--the analysis of this bill as posted by Zonk is wrong. Just see the post on this page by the Colorado leftist who points out that this bill instead outlaws muniWiFi.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled whining/screeching, on some OTHER post...
Foot in the door for internet censorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
What happens when the internet is a 'public' service? Will obscene/controversial/pr0n materials be subject to censorship and/or fining because they offend the public? (Like Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, Janet's b00bie, etc?)
In which case, I (and many internet users) would opt to *pay* for unfiltered/moderated internet access. So what's the point beside giving the government another entity to spend money on and mor
what visionaries (Score:2)
So what, we should be down on our knees thanking them for allowing it? It's already allowed, unless there was prior legislation prohibiting it, in which case I'm not exactly going to pretend to be grateful. Last week at the Freedom to Connect [freedom-to-connect.net] meeting, Susan Crawford began her posted comments [blogware.com] with the following:
Muni Competition (Score:3, Informative)
A compromise between municipal and commercial ISP (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
If you don't like the arrangement-you can move (Score:3, Interesting)
Colorado Telecom Bill (SB 05-152) IS POOPY... (Score:3, Informative)
Wallmart (Score:2)
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
Re:Wallmart (Score:2)
The obvious downside, as far as commercial TIFs go, is that there's a relatively
Re:Congradulations Colorado (Score:2)
Wow. Please never live in my town long enough to become a voter.
Re:Congradulations Colorado (Score:3, Insightful)
Proving once again that direct democracy can be defined as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."
Re:Some services were made for government (Score:2)
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:2)
What planet do you come from? Profits come from the difference between prices and costs.
Governments may have an advantage of economy of scale, but over time that will be overwhelmed by union featherbedding, corruption, giving sinecures to family members, etc.. What's missing is a profit motive to run economically and competitively.
Re:Some services were made for government (Score:2)
What planet do you come from? Profits come from the difference between prices and costs.
I think he meant businesses never cut costs to their customers. Which is true, unless they are forced to by competitive pressure. Like you said, it's income minus costs, so why would they want to reduce income? If it won't get them more sales, it's counter-productive.
Re:Some services were made for government (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Dangerous precedent? (Score:2)
They resell unshielded, untwisted copper pairs from Verizon, or whomever it is out west. This makes money for the last-mile telcos (twice -- once for the customer, and once for the ISP).
Cut out the middleman, and providing Internet service (like, through wireless equipment) becomes insanely cheap by comparison.
Re:Dangerous precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
What sort of service? (Score:2)
Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Why don't you try being more informed
Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see! (Score:2)
Take the example of waste pickup. Chicago decided that's a government job, so you get the service and restrictions that Chicago imposes. If your needs aren't covered by their rules, you get to pay for private pickup AND the public pickup you
Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see! (Score:2)
Pay attention. The proposed regulation is *nothing new*. Only an extension of already existing policies for electioneering to a new medium.
Everything else in your post is just misguided strawman attacks on something you obviously haven't e
Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see! (Score:2)
Why wouldn't they? (An honest question--is a government-run service somehow exempt from wiretap orders?)
Also, if anything I'd think that a government-owned network w
Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see! (Score:2)
Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I'll pay the extra money for cable... (Score:2)
You can break into wireless networks and use them for your own purposes. This is completely different from HTTPS.
The entire point of the weakness of wireless is that people should consider it a hostile network, just like the Internet. Nothing more, nothing less.