Municipal WiFi Moves Ahead In Houston

Highlander404 sends word of one city that is bucking the trend of failing city Wi-Fi projects: Houston is investing most of the $5 million Earthlink paid to get out of its muni Wi-Fi contract to build out 10 free wireless network "bubbles" in low-income parts of the city. Access points will be in city-owned facilities to keep costs down. Houston's mayor said that over the long term the bubbles could be connected and the areas between them added to the network. The activation of the first of these zones was announced Monday. Upload and download speeds are said to be 3 Mbps.

Not that failing

[steveo777]

We have it in Minneapolis [minneapolis.mn.us]. I'm not a subscriber but there is presence pretty much anywhere?

1 bubble != 1 access point

[langelgjm]

So 10 access points costs $5M....I want to be the guy who gets paid to install those...

From TFA: "Each bubble will include about 15 public access points at schools, city facilities and community organizations within the area."

Also, it's not $5 million, it's $3.5 million: "The company had to pay the city $5 million after defaulting on a contract to build a citywide wireless Internet network last year. On Monday, Mayor Bill White announced the city will use about $3.5 million of that money to build 10 free wireless network "bubbles" in low-income parts of Houston to give residents access they otherwise might do without." And I'm sure that money includes more than just the access point: think all the infrastructure, etc. to support them.

Re:1 bubble != 1 access point

[martinw89]

Yeah, maintaining bubbles like these can be quite expensive. I work in the IT department of Housing at my university. An ill-planned Mesh Network project for family/graduate housing has shown that maintaining these networks is more costly than just sticking in an access point. Each access point has to be able to support the bandwidth of many users, not just extend the signal to them. I'd imagine the Houston project required a good amount of fiber as well as very load capable access points.

Re:Not that failing

[Anonymous Coward]

I subscribe to the minneapolis service. They're having problems and are behind schedule, but I don't get the impression that there's a problem. It's not as fast as cable, but I can watch videos without any problem plus I can roam the city with an internet onnection. I just can't stand Comcast and would support this just to ensure competition.

Re:niggernet

[the brown guy]

racism != cool....or funny.

Re:there is no such thing as free

[YrWrstNtmr]

partly to combat the silly ideas of those that would try to make it a crime to 'attempt to join an open network'

Joining a network that is financed, designed, and built to be open from the start is very different than joining a random 'open' residential network. No matter how the protocol of two computers asking and granting each other access really works.

fixed cost vs recurring

[ancientt]

The cost of getting a computer is fixed. As a one time expense, it is something even a poor family can save up for. Sure, $200 for a crappy laptop and wifi card make take some saving up, but that is something that can be managed. A monthly cost of $35 (if they're very lucky) for broadband that only works at home is not an appealing proposition if you're barely scraping by. If you look at it as a two year investment, that is $8.50/month vs. $43.50/month.

The laptop also has the benefits of being able to help with self-education. This means that kids who need access the most, to help climb out of poverty through education and experience, get a better chance to do it. It won't help everyone and it will be abused, but it will help a lot of kids get out of the destructive cycle and that will pay off in less young adults needing public assistance and more paying taxes. It is a long term investment, but isn't that what we want city governments doing?

In the short term it might help more people prepare for a better job and encourage more business than the alternative ways of spending the same money. At the heart of every slum is a basic problem, there are lazy, greedy individuals out to get what the world "owes" them who at the same time harm those who might make a better life for themselves given the opportunity. I'm not sure if there is a way to change the behavior of those who are there because they are unwilling to make different choices, but it is possible to help those that are there because they are unable to find better opportunities.

Every young adult that gets a better job out of this is a double-payoff, first in the lack of cost to other tax payers, and second in the taxes that they will pay. I feels naive, but I believe that enough people will improve their lives that the long term cost to benefit ratio will come out positive for the tax payers.