Minneapolis To Go Wireless

an_mo writes " According to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article, Wednesday will see the announcement of a request for bids on a citywide wireless access service The city will unveil a request for a proposal for a privately owned, $15 million to $20 million citywide wireless and fiber-optic network to improve government communications by linking every city building, police car and housing inspector. The network would also would be available to every individual in the city for $18 to $24 a month."

Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[byteCoder]

As a resident of a suburb just outside of Minneapolis (Eden Prairie), I'm somewhat torn about this:

On the positive side, this influx of competition in the broadband arena is good for me as a consumer, currently tithing about $45/month to Time-Warner Cable (which serves Minneapolis and the SW 'burbs). More competition in the broadband arena is a very good thing--especially when it shakes up entrenched local monopolies (Qwest DSL and Time-Warner Cable). Also, as a Hennepin County (which contains Minneapolis and my suburb) taxpayer, technologies that can streamline government operations (and either provide better services and/or lower taxes) is another good thing.

However, on the negative side, I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.

Technology itself is neutral and can be used for both good and evil purposes. Perhaps, what I'd like to see would be a citizen's oversight group that can provide the checks on government abuse of the network.

Another smaller suburb to my southwest (Chaska [chaska.net]) has their own municipal deployment, which apparently is working out pretty well.

As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.

Re:why?

[Loco3KGT]

Because, surprise, it takes time and money to do things.

Kudos to the government for charging monthly for access. Charge the people that use it instead of taxing everyone for a handful of geeks to use it.

Wireless seems to be the "in" thing.

[Dzimas]

I'm impressed that so many cities seem to get the idea of blanketing the metro area with wireless, but it also concerns me because the technology changes so quickly. Telephone and cable took decades to pervade the nation, and the technology progressed at a relatively slow rate compare to the proliferation of wireless 801.xxx standards that flood the market year after year.

Spending $20 Million to install wireless is great, but it'll reflect poorly if the system isn't completely overhauled every few years.

Re:Wireless seems to be the "in" thing.

[Timesprout]

But this is the attraction of wireless, it requires far less infrastructure than previous networking technology so its cheaper and easier to implement and will be easier to replace.

Re:Wireless seems to be the "in" thing.

[brontus3927]

WiFi started with 801.11b 801.11a isn't WiFi. 801.11g is WiFi and backwards compatable with "b" There is work for a new WiFi standard 801.11n which will be backwards compatable with "b" and "g" devices. As long as IEEE sticks with WiFi compatability (and considering the huge infrastucture already inplace for WiFi networks, they will), then backwards compatability will be along for a very, very long time.
Will a city with 801.11g WiFi be considered inferior to a city with 801.11n WiFi? I don't think so.

Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[garcia]

As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.

I'm not concerned about it right now but I will begin to be curious once enough people switch over. With any municipality there is some financial ins and a lot of political ins.

Will Hennepin County/Minneapolis make the right QoS choice when picking the company that will supply the backend support for the wireless network (i.e. Visi) or will they choose some third rate company that no one has ever heard of but has political ties due to family?

Will they start enforcing site and port blocking when enough people start complaining that the network is too slow for what they are paying?

Right now I am not afraid of them poking their noses in to what the users are doing but that *will* become a problem in the future.

All these good things but yet we have to worry so much :(

Why is this considered good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, and when all of the cities have municipal wi-fi, the Fed will step in and give them 20 percent federal grants provided they pipe their data direct to the NSA. After all, we all want city inspectors to be able to access all our files from their laptops when they come over for an inspection. With e-filing, imagine the ability they are going to have to instantly file tickets, etc. Webcams on every corner, with facial recognition and full databasing, and no wires to cut. Muni Wi-Fi? Yeech! Someone throw a wooden shoe into these works.

Re:I'm sorry sir, breathing the oxygen is extra.

[dekemoose]

Quite possibly the most asinine comment I've seen in quite awhile. For god sakes take a moment to touch down in the real world. There is no inalienable right to wi-fi Internet access, or to Internet access at all. There are costs to such matters and they will be paid in one fashion or another by someone. Far better that they are paid for by the individuals making use of the service than to contribute to the overall tax burden.
I fully support the development of such networks, and as a resident of the minneapolis area I welcome this development, but it should not be another government program.

Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[CharlieHedlin]

Many of my posts have been opposed to municipal wireless, but this Mineapolis project seems a little different.

The city is proposing a private city wide network. Sure they will be using City provided facilities, but so does every phone and cable carrier (the right of way for the cables).

The private carrier will also be allowed to sell their services to end users. It basically sounds like the government has invited the private industry to bid on the opertunity to setup the network, with the city as their largest customer.

There is far less chance for the government to censor the network in this arangement. Sure, as the carriers largest customer the city will carry weight, but they already carry weight with the franchises offered to cable and phone carriers.

Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[Concerned Onlooker]

The horns of the dilemma: You get government wireless access and they spy on your activities or you get private wireless access and they spy on you for information they can sell.

Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[teaDrunk]

Do the public, who ends up paying for all this later, get a chance to weigh such pros & cons ? There seems to be a rush of metros these days setting up such networks.
I would not mind the facility but still .... who controls it...big brother? abuse, intrusion ...Not comfortable with it at all.

Re:Every cop car?

[brontus3927]

Or see that there are no cars on the road, so you can speed as fast as you want.

You mean like what people use RADAR detectors for?

I'm sure there will be patrol cars "running silent" every so often to shake things up. Most criminals aren't that tech-saavy. The ones that are, are already tracking cars through means of scanners and taking note of when cops go by usually.

In fact, if data communicated to and from patrol cars in encrypted, you might know if a cop is coming, but, unlike radio and a scanner, you wouldn't know if they are responding to a report of you commiting a crime (in which you need to get out immediately), or just driving by (in which case you just have to hide).

Re:I'm sorry sir, breathing the oxygen is extra.

[Leontes]

I personally find your comment to be distressing and pessimistic. I feel that the overall goal of having open internet capabilities for all people (and the hardware to do so) has the potential to help people live more productive lives, by aiding in information acquisition and use. By forcing people to pay for a city wide tool such as this, it becomes just another perk for the rich and wealthy to maintain the status quo. Obviously the money for such a project must come from somewhere, and making it a subscription based service initially to cover those costs makes sense, but I should hope that when the infrastructure is paid for maintenance will be from taxes and access would be universal.

Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[ImaLamer]

I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.

Just wait a few years when the religious zealots in town decide that "their" tax money isn't going to go to pr0n and that there should be filters in place. Hasn't this been the argument when it comes to filtering any other publicly funded access?

I live in Mpls - they will screw it up!

[gone.fishing]

I live in Minneapolis and have to say that I believe that they will find a way to royally mess this up.

On one hand, I see the benefits of it - I even think it may have far reaching benefits (like raising property values). On the other hand, we are Murderopolis and the money should go to fighting crime.

In a strange way, wireless may actually help with things like crime rates. No, I am not kidding! The city needs to attract business and people back into the city. Offering this inexpensive, quality service is one way of doing just that. More jobs = less despair = less crime.

I live in the North side of Minneapolis which is where much of the crime exists. It is in parts very bad, the gangs have control. When the gas company goes on service calls into these areas, they frequently hire off-duty police officers for security! There are quite a few empty or underutilized commercial buildings and several large areas where commercial businesses were tore down and are now just empty lots. Still businesses would be crazy to relocate here. They would be robbed, their employees harrassed and their property vandalized.

If wireless comes to Minneapolis, I would hope that it would hit the North side first. It would be an incentive to bring people and business in.

But the city won't work that way. North will be last.

Meanwhile, the cable company will slowly quit providing amazing broadband service since the few remaining subscribers won't justify the cost of upgrading equipment. Here, North Minneapolis will be the first to be cut back.

I'm screwed.

Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband...

[foston]

perhaps not, perhaps so. If they add value to their service, pehaps some will stay. BUT: They are LAZY. They dont try to compete, because competition hurts the bottom line. They take their comfortable chunks of territory and make predictable $ off that territory. Maybe a small border skirmish here of there, but for the most part they could care less. Thats where muni shakes it up. Muni's basic premise is that Internet access is a utility. Which I agree. All people should have access to this very basic service. But the big ISP's dont care about all that hippie stuff. They want as much as they can make in their territory. That is why it costs $40-60 a month here in duluth: we are a a small market, and therefore we pay more to the monopolies. They raise the rates at any time, and you pay. and pay. and pay. and pay. MUNI. Foston