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 live in colorado

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

$16 / month?

[TheFlyingGoat]

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

[earthstar]

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.

Re:I think the article is mistaken

[Nos.]

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.

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

[ShatteredDream]

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.

Allow Cities?

[Valiss]

...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?

www.chaska.net

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

Re:Some services were made for government

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:Wi-fi Vs Mesh

[Anonymous Coward]

Mesh networking has a slightly different goal in mind then provideing low cost to setup, and reaching as many people as possible.

What mesh networks try to acomplish is creating dynamic networks from moving parts. I don't know if you have ever went war driving and tried to IM with someon online while router hopping, but you will quickly find out that our current networks are designed for stationary devices.

I think you will start to see mesh networking taking off in about 3-6 years when more cars are outfitted with their own versions of vechicle to vechicle communication systems. (I read that some higher end automobile manufactures are doing this already).
The benefit of this would be the creation of "smart cars" that would be able to assit the driver with emergency decesions, or with simply route planning which takes into account traffic density, or planning based on accident reports, or assistance with avoiding those huge potholes in roads, or merging traffic to help assist emergency works............

Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see!

[WoodstockJeff]

Let's see, SanFran wants to regulate web logs [slashdot.org], and people are cheering a law that lets cities to install government-controlled WiFi networks to drive the "greedy" private companies out of business....

Not to mention fact that the FBI can hack a wireless net in 3 minutes [slashdot.org], so they'd never need to get a wiretap order to watch what you do... (and neither would the RIAA/MPAA)

Yep, sounds like the sort of thing every Slashdot reader should champion!

Re:$16 / month?

[boster]

And don't forget that if these cities mirror most American large and medium sized cities, then many, if not most, users will be people who don't live in the WiFi zone or even in the city. Most users will be people who work or are doing business downtown.

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 geogrphic centers of commerce besides downtown, it then behooves the city to provide "free" WiFi to those areas too as resources allow.

Health?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any health issues to consider when spreading a network of wireless access points across an entire city?

Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see!

[juuri]

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 before posting? And moderators stop bumping up crap just because it looks "smart".

Re:All you people think this is great and all

[ElDuderino44137]

I can also as this:
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.

A compromise between municipal and commercial ISP

[Krellan]

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....

Re:Free WiFi! Just let us chose what you see!

[An Onerous Coward]

"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-based WiFi, because I believe the barrier to entering the WiFi market is low (far lower than trying to provide cable or DSL Internet service). The argument in favor of such an endeavor is simple, however: government should intervene in areas where the benefits of an endeavor are large, but hard to translate into profit.

For example, if there was a benefit to giving better Internet access to homeless people, it might help them find jobs, tell them which shelters had room for them, or give them reminders to take their meds. The entire community would benefit, but no company would provide the service because the homeless are generally short on cash.

In this case, there may be a benefit that accrues to the city as a whole when anyone can hook in from anywhere, but no individual benefit is enough that a private enterprise could capitalize on it. Maybe the hope is that a more tech-savvy population will attract businesses, or that the increased communication will have public safety benefits.

Regarding San Francisco, it looks like they're attempting to close a loophole in campaign finance law. They've botched it badly, and I think the free-speech issues trump the fair election issues by a wide margin, but I can see their rationale. It's far different than, "The government is censoring weblogs to keep people from saying things it doesn't like". All in all, I don't think a government network is going to be any more likely to censor its customers than a private one would be.

I live in CO also, & this doesn't justify a TA

[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. 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.

If you don't like the arrangement-you can move

[randall_burns]

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.

Re:Congradulations Colorado

[2short]

So many people say, without any evidence. The only real direct democracies I know of are small towns in New England. I've lived in such a town. Once a year, every resident that showed up for town meeting got to vote on the town budget. That town had the most well-controlled spending of any governmental unit I've known. In less direct democracies, candidates will promise people all sorts of bread and circuses; they just don't talk about how they are going to pay for it, and the voters don't think about it. At town meeting, you're not going to get any remotely controversial spending through without everyone and their brother directly asking the voters how they think they are going to pay for it. For getting people to think about limiting government excesses, there's nothing like Roberts Rules of Order. In terms of sane budgets, I've seen no approach that comes anywhere close to having the individual voters vote on every bloody line-item. It's too bad it isn't practical on larger scales.