Colorado May Allow Cities To Provide Wifi

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 think the article is mistaken

[phaetonic]

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...

On the surface...

[ScooterBill]

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.

My economics is a little fuzzy but...

[scovetta]

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>

Tax Dollars? I want Tax pounds spent on it

[rescendent]

And I want it in UK!

So... cheap phone service too?

[popo]

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:Some services were made for government

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least as far as healthcare, they do. Take a look at socialized healthcare systems in the world - check costs vs. lifespans/infant mortality/etc. In general, they're very cheap for the QoS that they provide.

A good chunk of total healthcare costs are related to insurance and billing overhead. Simplifying the system yields huge benefits, in cases like that. Certainly, this doesn't apply to all government programs...

Re:$16 / month?

[Telastyn]

A lower population density. Most likely due to the more uneven terrain in colorado, as compared to wisconsin.

Can somebody explain why cities do this?

[pauljlucas]

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.

All you people think this is great and all

[hsmith]

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.

Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this?

[brontus3927]

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 pick up our trash for a decade while our taxes go towards subsidizing a service we don't use. What about telephone polls? My great grandparents had to pay to have telephone polls installed on their road leading up to their house. 10 miles worth. At ~20 polls per mile and a cost of $1 per pole, that came to an expensive $200. Private vs public schools are the same issue. Private trash companies and private schools exist even though there are free alternatives. The same will be with WiFi.

And why are so many cities interested in providing WiFi access and not telephone or cable? Because of demand. People are clamoring for internet access but there has never been a big movement for free cable/phone service.

Re:Dangerous precedent?

[kebes]

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 it's going to happen. The government doesn't really want to get involved, and people who live in places with good and affordable commercial ISPs won't vote for gov-supported ISPs. Besides, as many posters have mentioned, the internet has become a public commodity/infrastructure, like electricity or roads, and could be partially implemented by public funds.

Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example...

[drinkypoo]

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 when the government locks out private competition and runs its own service, then it is a favorable one in terms of benefit to the consumer.

What gives?

[vvaduva]

I don't understand why you guys are all so bent on the government providing internet access for people? Have we all not learned that the government can rarely do anything right? Has anyone thought the whole thing through, such as the long-term cost of maintaining the infrastructure, the security implications, legal liability, children exposure to pornography, illegal activity, etc? What does it cost to hire qualified people to maintain the whole thing, perform repairs, etc? And why is the government better at doing it than a private corporation? The government controlling your internet access is not the way to go. You are just asking for trouble, from any perspective you want to name. Freedom of speech, security, online well-being of children, financial losses, increased taxes, etc. What jackass bureaucrat will dictate what websites you can and cannot go to, or what kind of traffic you can and cannot put on the network?

Re:I live in colorado

[Golias]

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.

Re:This is a SHOCK and a SHAME.

[letxa2000]

While taxes are a necessary evil, they must be minimized. That's because, unlike private industry where you can take your business elsewhere, you cannot opt out of taxes just because you don't use the "services" that are being "provided." If you don't need a service being offered by a business, you don't buy that service--but no such luxury is available when it comes to taxes.

I believe the government should build and maintain roads, provide domestic security (police, essentially) so that we are not in danger out in public, and provide for the defense of the country. Local governments should also provide public education. THAT'S IT. If that's all we had to pay for tax-wise we'd probably be paying about 20% what we pay now in taxes... and be not confused, social security and medicare are both taxes.

Minimal taxation is not unreasonable and is a necessary evil of life. But the "services" provided by the government have far exceeded what is necessary and the taxation necessary to support that spending is a huge burden on the citizens.

In that sense, minimal taxation is reasonable. But excessive taxation beyond the minimal amount necessary to support the basic functions of government is, morally, theft.

Foot in the door for internet censorship?

[zombiestomper]

Supposedly, the FCC can censor and fine because they are 'moderating' the public airwaves.

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 more power to control what people see, hear and read?

I used to think it was a good idea. Then the the rapid FCC started throwing it's weight around. Then congress and the FCC started talking about regulating cable and sattelite radio for decency. Now I am just paranoid of another piece of government regulation.

Remember, the Chinese are trying their damndest to regulate the internet, too!

[I can't define what is pornography.] "But I know it when I see it."-- Potter Stewart, SCOTUS Justice

Worse than that

[jimbro2k]

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?).

Re:Can somebody explain why cities do this?

[Politburo]

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.

Re:The U.S. Postal Service is a good example...

[bfields]

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

I'm in CO...this doesn't justify a TAX.

[WaxParadigm]

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.

Re:Congradulations Colorado

[Golias]

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."

Re:This is a SHOCK and a SHAME.

[mzwaterski]

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 why I'm continuing this argument. Your little logic game is functionally illogical because you are starting your argument with a definition that is incorrect. Taxes are not theft.