Municipal WiFi Costs Outweigh Benefits 322
TheSync writes "JupiterResearch claims that muni WiFi costs outweigh benefits. It can cost up to $150,000 per square mile over five years, which may not even provide each user a benefit of $25 a month. They suggest that such projects only be taken on as public-private partnerships."
Minor Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, it says an assumed $25/month benefit, not that it's not even $25/month. Also, Internet access costs me $40/month, so...
Third, it says the first five years, which includes all manner of infrastructure creation. Even a major network upgrade would likely cost less later on, because you don't have to find locations, put up towers, etc. I'd like to see the per year estimates, but I'm not subscribed to Jupiter's service.
If your town/city is going through the work and effort to build this manner of network, hopefully someone is going to notify your citizens and try to get them onboard. By Jupiter's reckoning, it takes an average 100 users per square mile to cover the costs. Now, if your city/town put any real effort into this project, you'd probably let people know that free Internet access is a $40 network card away. Get local computer stores to stock up on the cards and ask them to chip in on an ad campaign. They can offer a flat-rate installation service (with caveats for running into problems, etc)
Re:Minor Details (Score:5, Insightful)
woof.
Re:Minor Details (Score:3, Interesting)
Fucktards (both Jupiter and anyone who pays for this "report").
Re:Minor Details (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Minor Details (Score:2)
Re:Minor Details (Score:3, Funny)
I figured that paucity of unbiased analysis had to be an anagram for something...
Inauspicious Beady Satan Fly!
Now all you have to do is figure out what it means.
Re:Minor Details (Score:3, Funny)
2) Insidious "Fantasy Palace" Buy
3) Pay Us An Inability-Focussed "A"
4) Inability As "Pa", You Fecund Ass
5) I Bandy Up Facetious Analysis (my favorite!)
6) Facetious Analysis Paid By UN
7) Suspicious Denial By A Fay Ant
8) In A Suspicious Fealty-Day Nab
9) Obfuscate Analysis: I Pay In Du...
10) A Sinous Playa FBI Syndicate (???)
Sneaky Bastards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Minor Details (Score:4, Interesting)
Only reporting on a limited scope isn't bias, it's merely a boundary.
What gets me is the emphasis on breakeven points, profiteering opportunities, etc. Not everything needs a 100% quantifiable ROI. Muni WiFi is just that; the benefit it provides is a convenience for the community for both casual users (check mah email) and mobile workers. I.e., build it if you can afford it.
As a last resort, we could always measure the usage in kilogirls.
Re:Minor Details (Score:4, Interesting)
What they fail to mention is whom it works/doesn't work for. WIFI in small communities doesn't work for Big Business when the community does it effectively. It does work for Big Business if you can layer the FUD enough to convince the community to piss money into a private company for no reason at all.
I've seen enough small town WIFI installations, done by the community, to know that this 'report' is a low down dirty shame.
Anyone seen any reports from the other angle? Reports on communities successfully deploying WIFI on their own, for low cost?
Re:Minor Details (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Minor Details (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be a reasonable average proportion of wired internet to wireless?? We get both Cable Internet and DSL around here, and I'd guess the wired households probably outnumber the wireless household by at least 2 or 3 to 1. OK, not all the wired households would go wireless, but some would. We dropped cable completely because the cable (digital TV + internet) costs kept creeping up. DSL + DishTV turned out to be cheaper, plus there're no port or server restrictions... If wireless was available at a competitive price, we'd certainly consider it.
Re:Minor Details (Score:3, Funny)
I'd think you could fit a lot more quarters in a square mile. I mean, I can fit more than 16 quarters (US currency) on my mousepad.
Oh, I see, you're talking that special relativity stuff where it depends on your frame of reference whether you're stacking the quarters or balancing them on edge, or
Re:Minor Details (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Minor Details (Score:5, Insightful)
They forget that government pays more for each worker, corporations just take all the profits to the people on the top. When people see the guy on the bottom makin money they claim he don't deserve it and its waste. But when the guy on the top does, they don't complain.
Its whack. Besides, every new business should expect to loose money its first several years...
Re:Minor Details (Score:3, Interesting)
Chinese use central planning, we no worship market as god.
quote from the CIA factbook on China [cia.gov]:
In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, inefficient, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and vi
Doing the Numbers, Finding the Assumptions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Minor Details (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Minor Details (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that we aren't talking about ass-fault, we are talking about wi-fi. In 5 years there may be a totally new way of putting in the systems, or the cost may come down so low that it is laughable.
So a report on what a new tech will cost is sort of ridicerous. I mean, if you decided to buy every st
Re:Minor Details (Score:5, Informative)
5-year projected statements are the norm for a consultant, especially one with an agenda. They might have a contract on the back burner with a telecom carrier to project the same project if they were to do it as a private project.
Second, they're making a lot of assumptions, such as internet service penetration at a given price point (estimating demand accurately is hard). Their net benefit figure probably comes from a weighted average of those on dialup and broadband, paying their respective rates currently.
Also, they're estimating cost on a project where the exact technology used probably hasn't even been determined (for instance, WiMax doesn't yet fully exist), and doesn't take into account existing infrastructure (poles, etc already exist in many places).
I agree that this is a half-assed article. I'm just trying to shed some light on what makes it a half-assed article, from the economic consulting point of view.
Re:Minor Details (Score:2)
I figured the fact that it was released by an economic consulting firm was the first clue it was half-assed, but thanks for the additional information.
Re:Minor Details (Score:4, Informative)
A previous story here on
Based on that, there's no clear evidence that wi-fi is absolutely cost-effective or absolutely not cost effective. It really depends on your city and a lot of other factors. I would hazard a guess that low-density areas are not going to do well. (That's why Casper, Wymoing and Yuma, Arizona, and Bismarck, North Dakota all are at the bottom of the list).
If you have better cost info, you can always play with the data yourself.
...and in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh. The Federal/State/Local government(s) do all sorts of things and provide all sorts of services that are for the public good that don't make money. Internet access is the next utility. I've got municipal water, why not municipal internet? Sure, it may not be appropriate for rural or even some suburban areas, but for areas that hav
Re:...and in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? Because I can't opt out.
The same holds for the services that most of us already pay for. I live in a community where the garbage is picked up by people paid for by a private condo association. I pay a fee for this. However, I still pay taxes to the city, some of which are used to fund trash removal from residents outside of my community.
If I only want to use wired internet, and am willing to pay for it, why should I be forced to pay for the wireless connection
Re:...and in other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even going beyond things I find morally problematic, I can't opt-out of paying for schools just because I don't have any kids. I can't opt-out of paying for garbage disposal if I were to recycle 100% of my trash. We live in a community, and as members of a community, our tax dollars pay for civic projects for the greater good. I believe internet access to be one of them.
keeping smart workers around (Score:3, Interesting)
costs outweigh the benefits? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:costs outweigh the benefits? (Score:2)
I don't know about most areas, but in Southeastern Pennsylvania, SEPTA [septa.org] can never make as much money in fares as it needs to spend. Even with generous government subsidies, it has massive budget shortfalls year after year after year.
Now the governor of Pennsylvania, in an amazingly audacious or clever move (depending on your viewpoint) is figuring out a way to redirect federal highway dollars to the public transportation system. [septa.org]
Say what
Re:costs outweigh the benefits? (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize there is an argument that can be made on both sides. But realize that it is a public welfare system.
As opposed to the bagillions of dollars spent on roadways because the existing ones are too crowded for the cars that people want to put on them?
Re:costs outweigh the benefits? (Score:2)
Let's not forget the tons of money that are thrown to the city (and Pittsburgh) every year to cover up the massive budget deficts.
While we're on the subject of subsidizing, it's almost a given that when government subsidizes the construction of sports stadiums, the revenue generated over the years from those stadiums will not equal or exceed the original cost.
Re:costs outweigh the benefits? (Score:2)
Also, how much is farebox revenue covering costs? 30%-50%?
Over the past few years our state has had issues with transit because the politicans moved it to an unstable funding source to 'reform' property taxes.
Lastly, your second link illustrates that the government continually punts the healthcare issue to other people (ie: taxpayers in this case). Every time this happens I think we need to be very pissed off that our leaders can't figure out a way to push down t
Re:costs outweigh the benefits? (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither do libraries.
Actually, maybe it doesn't increase the tax base, but municipal wi-fi would free up money for residents to spend locally instead of sending it to Verizon or Cablevision. Not that they necessarily will, of course, but it's not a total loss.
Well, Wifi isn't cheap enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there are exceptions (where town.size approaches zero) or (starbuck.count approaches infinity) but this is just the economics catching up with the technology.
If you've got a connection at home, and you've got a connection on the Bus, and you've got a connection via your cellphone, and yuo've got a connection via your coffee shop, why does a city have to be 100% covered by 802.11a/b/g? GPRS/EDGE/3g/future can (and initially will) pick up the slack.
Re:Well, Wifi isn't cheap enough (Score:2)
It doesn't but people like having Internet access all over their home area while only paying for it once.
I have GPRS, I have DSL, and I have wireless access via Panera and "nice neighbors". Guess what? The GPRS connection (and device) aren't cheap -- I pay $20/month on top of my cell phone plan for data service, luckily the phone was free. The DSL connection I have is ~$55/mo. The wireless connections I can take advantage of require a wireless LA
Re:Well, Wifi isn't cheap enough (Score:2)
Or, more likely, we'll realize that you Don't Need Pervasive Internet Everywhere...it's just another fantasy us Geeks have.
Re:Well, Wifi isn't cheap enough (Score:3, Insightful)
> just another fantasy us Geeks have.
I have a hunch that in 20 years or so, you'll marvel at how you survived without an omnipresent global network.
It has to work better, first (Score:5, Interesting)
The range sucks. (Score:2)
Maybe its the antenas, maybe its the transmitters, but it sucks that I get better reception from the neighbor's WAP through the floor/ceiling than I can get from my own unobstructed AirPort WAP from 50 feet away.
I know about the inverse square rule with distance but it sucks that the none of the Airport set up software can understand about repeaters. I can only have a star net
Re:It has to work better, first (Score:5, Informative)
For example... my home internet connection is a 6.1 mile 802.11b connection to the campus where I work and my laptop usually connects over a wrt54g unit in my basement. I am currently downloading an ISO over both of these at a hair over 230KB/s and that is the norm.
Also.. the only outtages I have ever had from any wireless are when the units themselves have lost power due to bad UPSs. (Hint... UPS in top of water tower == lightning bait
If you are having these problems I would suggest you fix the location/number of APs to get proper coverage of the area... change your wifi card to see if it is just that... or if you are using an semi-old version of windows upgrade to a newer one or to linux and get some stable drivers.
Anyways... just my 2 cents...
Re:It has to work better, first (Score:3, Interesting)
Hark to my voice of warning! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear me before it is too late! SHUN the evil of the Three P's, Public Private Partnership! Turn ye either to the left, to publically funded projects, or to the right, to the blessed land of private enterprise -- but walk not the middle path, the path of the Three P's!
Once, this land of England was fair and pleasant, with mighty Industry and caring Government working hand in hand! Then came the Three P's! They promised us cost savings and social responsibility, but they delivered nothing -- nothing save gigantic invoices and permanent damage to the environmental and social fabric of the nation!
Turn aside, oh turn, I beg you, America, from this path of wickedness! For the evil of Bloated Government Inefficiency is in them, and the sin of Greedy Private Contractors they likewise have! And the private half shall spend, yea spend and spend, and the public half will know not nor care where the money has gone!
Repent therefore, repent before they do unto you as they have unto Europe!
My words have the semblance of jest, but the danger is deadly serious.
An entreaty to moderate upwards (Score:2, Funny)
This missive does indeed speak the truth. I encourage those of you blessed with the points of moderation to bestow them unstintingly and with the fullness of your heart to the above post, so that the multitudes may come to know of this cautionary tale of Britannic woe.
Re:An entreaty to moderate upwards (Score:2)
Re:Hark to my voice of warning! (Score:2, Insightful)
---
BTW: For those moderating today--I am making a JOKE. If you don't get it, keep your filthy "offtopic" hands off my post.
Re:Hark to my voice of warning! (Score:2, Interesting)
They won't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether this effort does this successfully is what's being debated. It's likely that you will be able to get other forms of internet connection, because having a public version will just give the companies who provide it a point of comparison. But people who will be able to have at least that standard, which may be the point.
My problem with this effort is not the government possibly controlling internet access, it's a.) the governments that try to control web _content_, i.e. China, and b.) the fact that WiFi is useless for people too poor to afford computers. Are they going to provide computers, too? Because the cost per person goes up substantially at that rate- without it, though, it's a profound waste of money anyway.
Me, I'd like my town to have more funding for the library, which lets kids use the computers for homework if they don't have them at home. Or the digital bridge projects out there, which provide home computers for families that don't have them- and training to be able to use them.
Oh, i don't disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
there are other places where the money could be more useful. Say, for
Re:Hark to my voice of warning! (Score:4, Insightful)
> government controlling my access to the Internet.....
But you're okay with a multi-billion corporation controlling your access? I'm confused why some people are knee-jerk afraid of the government but not afraid of large corporations.
In a democracy, you at least have some say in the government. You can vote and usually your vote counts*. The fact that each person has one vote, each person theoretically has an equal say in the matter. On top of that, there is a public infrastructure in place (three branches of government/Federal/State/Local/etc) and a set of rules (Constitution/laws/etc). There is even public disclosure (Freedom of Information Act/public records/etc). Naive, I know, but at least theoretically, the government is there to serve the public. For example, one can hope that the government will respect the right to privacy because it's supposed to do that.
On the other hand, with corporations, the only purpose is to make money for shareholders. That's it. Not social responsibility, not rights of the consumer, not protecting the environment, not community support, not "patriotism". Businesses report on their dealings only because the government forces public corporations to do so. During the shareholders' meetings, more money invested in the company results in more votes, so it isn't "one vote/one person." You might have a single vote out of 200 million people when you vote for president, but you have likely less than that when it comes to voting for the CEO of a company.
Luckily, many (okay, "some"?) corporations are managed by people who seek to support these other items in addition to seeking profits. However, from a strictly legal perspective, they are not obligated to do so. So if one day your ISP decides there is a higher profit for selling off customer information than the lost profits due to customers dropping the service that result from this, they will do it.
So from that standpoint, you're better off trusting the government than you are trusting a corporation. Not much better off, so try to remain vigilant.
* offer not valid in Florida [cnn.com]
Re:Hark to my voice of warning! (Score:5, Informative)
If you've never heard of PPP, basically it's a way of transferring money from the public sector to the pockets of private individuals.
The theory is that private companies can do some things more efficiently due to their experience and better commerical skills, and that they can take the risk of the project. In reality, it usually ends with the companies using their skills and knowledge to extract large amounts of money from the (possibly naive) Government department funding the project. And sometimes the whole thing just goes pear-shaped and everyone loses out
(Yes, I am cynical.)
Re:Hark to my voice of warning! (Score:2)
Look at Jupitier's motivation: (Score:4, Informative)
"The ClickZ.com Network offers cutting-edge commentary on Internet marketing and advertising from industry leaders as well as original case studies and unique insight.
The Graphics.com Network provides creative professionals with tutorials, news on the latest technologies, and community forums and galleries to display their work.
The internet.com, EarthWeb.com, DevX.com, ClickZ.com and Graphics.com Networks appeal to advertisers and vendors because they provide a community that only delivers information technology, Internet industry and creative professionals, 83% of whom make or influence technology purchasing decisions. Among our advertisers are some of the best known names in information technology and the Internet industry, including Computer Associates, Dell Computer Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Google, Microsoft Corporation and Oracle Corporation. " (Copied from their "About Jupitier Media" section)
Of course they back a public-private shared venture, what better way to insert ads into the public Wi-Fi network!
Awfully short-sighted analysis... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's also assume a statistical overrepresentation of "connected" workers in the areas so equipped. Let's further assume than most of the systems work acceptably well. Let's even still further more (and yet) assume that those workers are made more efficient through access to their data, their schedules, the people making their schedule
Re:Awfully short-sighted analysis... (Score:2, Insightful)
The company I work in (outside US) had a choice to make a pretty expensive repair on our automated lines that should've had long-term effects, but instead they chose a little less expensive with only short-term effects, and now the repairs have to be made each year. Why the poor choi
Re:Awfully short-sighted analysis... (Score:2)
Contract research (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Contract research (Score:2)
It's usually being paid for by someone with an agenda and, no surprise, the research tends to support the conclusions the customer wants.
Please note that this isn't necessarily the fault of the research firm. The customer gets to set the bounds of the research, and these boundaries determine the outcome.
A company could not/would not give Jupiter or Gartner carte blanche because they would run them dry - research is infinite, and bounds must be set.
So don't blame the research firm, or even the in
Re:Contract research (Score:5, Interesting)
As it stands, there's no way in HELL I'd ever take a report from these guys even remotely into consideration. It's just buying false advertising really, with no disclaimers attached. Or even the brand of the company paying for the advertising.
It's low down, sleazy, and IMHO, should be illegal.
Re:Contract research (Score:3, Informative)
Forrester responded to this by no longer accepting "projects that involve paid-for, publicized product comparisons".
Kudos for them. Integrity matters.
Pretty Funny (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pretty Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly. Or more likely it was a company that represents that private part of that Private/Public Partnerships mentioned in the article.
I got the jist that it was along the lines of: "No, no, no, don't do WiFi yourself, it just costs too much. We'll do it for you have save you $$$$ millions!"
Believe it or not,
Re:Pretty Funny (Score:2)
The thing you have to ask yourself is this:
If it will *really* lose millions of dollars each year, why does the company want to do it?
Yeah, every company *I* know has millions of dollars that it has to lose each year, right? Isn't that the purpose of a company, to give away all of its' money?
WiFi Story (Score:5, Funny)
Nathan
The Politics of this Study (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the Wifi activists (Boston Area Wireles [bawia.org] for example) are trying to convince local governments to at least establish a single note public Wifi system just so that they can continue to operate if the telecom industry manages to outlaw public networks.
It's pretty obvious which side of this battle has the money and motive to pay for "independent" research.
-braddock
That's Really Oversimplied (Score:3, Insightful)
$25/month per person is NOTHING! Infrastructures to enable people to work together are usually good investments for the government. Let's just ask S. Korea what they think about widespread access...
Person to person idea transmission will save us (Score:2, Insightful)
I say this because right now the mass media is responsible for the transmission of the vast majority of political/social ideas. Outside of internet forums and colleges, very little transmission of political ideas is going on from person to person. All ideas come from the mass media.
However, the mass media is owned and
Re:Person to person idea transmission will save us (Score:4, Insightful)
Any evidence on this? Free Trade and globalisation have certainly driven up the quality of life in pretty much all of the west, and is beginning to help elsewhere.
The elite like lots of immigration. But that hut
rts us working American citizens.
Now this is just plain crap. You do know what Ellis Island was don't you? Immigration does NOT hurt working Americans, it HELPS by increasing the GDP of the country and aiding in growth, it also provides people for the jobs that help your quality of life but you would never do (Strawberry picking in CA anyone?).
Its amazing how Americans can say that Free Trade and Immigration are bad, when these are EXACTLY the things that made America great. Absolutely Amazing.
Re:Person to person idea transmission will save us (Score:2)
But that economic analysis makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes that the distribution of the benefits and losses doesn't matter. It assumes that there is a net benefit to losing a million dollars per year i
Re:Person to person idea transmission will save us (Score:5, Informative)
I think you need to get out a little more. See, there are these things called "conversations", which allow a person-to-person transmission of ideas. And these "conversations" still occur all over the place. Visit your local coffeehouse, cafe, restaurant, or bar sometime, to see what I mean.
We no longer fight for our rights.
"We" (i.e. the great unwashed masses) no longer fight for our rights because we are fat and happy - some of the wealthiest people on the planet. Yes, yes, I know, "we" are not as wealthy as "the elite", but we're still far better off than most of the rest of the world. As a a result, "we" have become complacent and decadent.
Your elite-vs-the-workers class warfare rhetoric is charmingly quaint, but "so 20th Century". The vast majority of Americans are "middle class".
"lower income people"? (Score:2)
Becaues municipal WIFI is free, there will be a ton of people joining and using it, especially the lower income people.
So there is a demographic that can afford computers with wireless capabilities but cannot afford monthly ISP fees? I'm not saying such folk don't exist; I'm saying it's probably a very small niche and probably shouldn't be factored into your scenario.
Let's just ask S. Korea what they think about widespread access...
This is a red herring: South Korea has a large market for wired
Another Coin Operated "research lab"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Common sense will tell you that muni wifi is a good thing for you and me and a bad thing for the telcos. If the costs of muni wifi outweigh the benefits, then why are the telcos spending so much money buying all this legislation to outlaw muni wifi?
Also, there are cities that have already implemented muni wifi, therefore why not go loko at their implementation, and SEE what the costs and benefits are? Why bother with this fake research? And did the telcos pay Slashdot to run this article?
Re:Another Coin Operated "research lab"? (Score:2)
That said, the whole idea of the report was to look at existing municipal "WiFi" projects. From TFA:
Benefits are difficult to quantify, especially given that some (most?) projects are not fully deployed. Almost none would be five y
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
As for "public/private" goes. Endeavors like that are always funded with tax money, but any income goes into private pockets. Which means that it STILL will be a money loser for municipalities.
Municipal Wireless Report (Score:2)
There's not much there, though a few other places have picked up bits, no one has the actual important parts that could tell us is this report is worth the bits its printed on.
We're supposed to trust research "reported on" in a press release?
And this is expensive? (Score:4, Informative)
How will being private make it profitable? (Score:2, Insightful)
They say that costs outway the benefits. If that is true, then no sane private entity should invest in it.
The only way you would get the service then is if it became a public work. It is the same with any service that cost too much like rural electric. So they should be in favor of municipal WiFi if any. This is not a very credible report.
Quiet! (Score:2)
Shhhhhh! Don't tell anybody.
I was thinking the same thing. The only thing that makes sense is that a private entity could in theory do a project that doesn't pay off as fast - the study focused on the costs over the first 5 years which contains a lot of one-off costs.
I'm doubting that too, though - seems a government would be able to leverag
From the authors website... (Score:5, Informative)
Thhat don't exactly strike me as comapatible when you're determining whether the governement can or cannot do something cost effectively. This is being sold to companies who, one would presume, would like to convince municipalities to NOT put in a competing (wireless) ISP.
To take my town as an example, we have 40,000 residents spread over 22 square miles. A lot of these are college students (I've excluded on-campus residents from that number) so I'll say 3 people per "household". That's 13,000 potential "subscribers", or 591 per square mile. I'd say more than half here have internet access of some type. If we GAVE away the wifi cards, we might double the infrastructure cost for the first 5 years (20,000x$40/5=160k).
I come up with $16.95 per month per internet-using household. Verizon (who was laying fiber down mainstreet last week) and Adelphia wouldn't be too happy, of course.
Before you think this might be too much money for a small town, we have a PPP for a new parking garage here (and retail shopping building). A developer convinced the town to float at $2M bond to help him build the building, and he gets to charge for parking during the day and for events. Even though we had to borrow the money to do it, the mayor claimed that the town would get (x) free evening and weekend parking spaces for only $20 a month. He forgot that we were borrowing the money, and the number was closer to $50 after interest expenses. That's more than the town pays to lease surface lot space 24/7/365. But, the mayor's been known to go out to lunch - on the developers tab - fairly frequently. Now that its built, of course, nobody wants the park there, because its too far to walk (2-3 blocks) to the "downtown shops", and is used only occasionally when the on-street parking is completely full.
Does that account for town vehicles? civic uses? (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF! Yeah it is cost effective! (Score:4, Informative)
Lets see here, One square Mile in FIVE years costs $150,000. At $25.00 a month (per user) that's $1,500 in FIVE years PER user. Now as long as there are at least 10 freakin people per square mile you've at least broke even... and this is in cities, so I think there will be more than 10 damn people using the system.
God, these people who are clawing to keep this from happening to benefit the public for their own greed sicken me. I'm glad we try so hard to build useful infrastructure that is affordable and accessible to all of us who pay 30% of our paychecks to gain some usefulness besides lining some corrupt-ass politician's pockets instead. Our money is *much* better in his pocket than in the community where some benefit would be realized.
And FTR, MY internet access costs more like $40 per month and I'm sure most others do too. Give me a break!
Re:WTF! Yeah it is cost effective! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF! Yeah it is cost effective! (Score:2)
Re:WTF! Yeah it is cost effective! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WTF! Yeah it is cost effective! (Score:2)
The thing is that even a 100 people per square mile is no big deal in even the smallest one-horse towns. Also you have to realize these numbers include the initial costs as well as maintenance, and they only projected it over 5 years because after that the costs drop off significantly. In any network the initial costs are high and then go to almost nil.
Re:WTF! Yeah it is cost effective! (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say 10 years ago most people were on 56kbps dial-up for $20/month. By my calculations, that's about 36 times more expensive ($/bps) than my service today. Taking the square root of 36 (because we are projecting five years out instead
To what end? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love this reasoning. "It's too expensive to be worthwhile, so please pay a private firm to do it."
$25/month a deal! (Score:2)
Re:$25/month a deal! (Score:2)
I have at home comcast, at work location one comcast, and work location two verizon dsl.. (residentail class) it's prone to erratic drop outs, it seems at time to be weather/damp related but it doesn't matter, verizon REFUSES to come on site and test the line.
they 'test it' and a few hours/maybe day later the automated recording calls to notify me that everything is clear on the line.
let me tell you, it's not.
the one time my line dropped inexplicably from comcast (tv cabl
I agree about private corporations being involved (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of municipal WiFi, there are a huge number of public or semi-public hotspots all over major cities. The local governments would have to be offering a really good deal to make this beneficial to everyone. And if this is really a government service, though, one presumes it would be paid for via taxes of some kind. It would be better if the city got involved in helping private companies find places to put access points, perhaps providing some measure of physical security to those locations, for a fixed amount per location per month (let's say it's $3 per AP per month with a minimum of 1000 APs to cover a decent area). The company could then use some kind of authentication mechanism to make sure people connecting had paid for its service (maybe $25/mo).
The university I attend is modifying its wireless network to broadcast two seperate SSIDs - one that authenicated users (ie students, staff, faculty) can use (and is firewalled, etc) and a second that is wide open for anyone to use, but has no security whatsoever. Non-authenticated users could use a lower speed, and unsecured, version of the network (throttled back to a max of say 802.11b), while the paying subscribers would be able to use the higher available bandwidth (802.11a/g). This would allow people in lower income areas to still use the internet, but people who wanted more speed could pay for it.
Of course, with the new precedent set in Tampa Bay FL [slashdot.org], how would municipalities actually be able to act on people using the network for illegal activity? (I personally think that it's the user's responsibility to not do anything illegal, but heaven help you if you believe in personal responsibility in America.)
Such muni WiFi projects could also impact other types of internet subscriptions (especially dial-up), and might be viewed as very anti-competitive to local, traditional ISPs.
umm... cellular? (Score:2)
Or you could have a private company put in the infrastructure and get a monopoly for X number of years with the city paying a subsidized rate until X years is over when the city takes over.
seems like there are lots of options...
All about density (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look at certain parts of Tokyo and Taiwan, you have some of the most densely populated areas with high rates of broadband usage in the world.
Maybe cities should not be building WiFi networks covering corn fields in Illinois, but they certainly make sense for place like Tokyo , Taipei, New York and Bombay.
Ask Hugo, Colorado... (Score:5, Interesting)
Qwest has the DSL rights in Colorado pretty well locked up, and simply won't give service in the rural towns until it's damn good and ready..and that won't be anytime soon, because it hasn't even finished wiring Denver yet. Meanwhile, it's lobbying for a state law to ensure that its monopoly will continue to await Qwest's whim.
rj
Costs outweigh benefits? (Score:4, Insightful)
$25/month = $300/year = $1,500 over 5 years
1500 * 100 = 150000
so they just need to get 100 users per square mile to break even, given these assumptions? am i the only one who finds these numbers to be a tremendous argument for benefits outweighing costs? add to this the fact that most people are paying more than $25/month for internet access, and i think that's exactly what this shows.
Math doesn't add up. (Score:5, Insightful)
so that works out to 150,000/5 years/12 months = 2500 per square mile per month.
Which means that if you have 100 users in a square mile, which is far more than reasonable, you will be getting equivalent costs to benefits.
Let's say I misunderstood it, and it was 150,000 per square mile per year over 5 years. So then it would be 150,000/12 = 12500 ~ 500 users would be needed, again, really small number for a large city.
Finally, let's say I'm completely wrong and that 150,000 is per month. Then it would require 6000 users for there to be benefit. Which in a city like New York or San Francisco, is far more than reasonable.
Unless, of course, Jupiter is stating something way off, their math makes no sense at all. The cost they are giving is way more than reasonable for the benefits to the general population.
Re:Math doesn't add up. - Exactly (Score:2)
reverse logic (Score:4, Insightful)
A well-managed public service will always be more cost-effective than the same service provided by a well-managed private operation, because there's no profits being taken out before the bottom line. That's basic math.
The trick of course is getting the public service to be well-managed, but that's mostly just a matter of political will. The local Chamber of Commerce will of course pooh-pooh the very notion and sometimes even stand in the way of it, because their interest is in creating niches for private businesses to exploit instead. And of course employees (especially if organized) will try to get as much out of it as possible as well. The government just needs to show some backbone and do it right, regardless.
The only reason a private entity truly needs to be involved is if investors are needed for the capital, and the government doesn't have the means to raise it through bonds or taxes. Otherwise, let the public sector hire the same people to do the same job at the same salary/wages the private company would have hired them at. If the argument is ideological (that government shouldn't do this sort of thing) that's another matter, but if it's a question of accounting, the advantage is to the fully-public approach.
Counter-case (Score:4, Informative)
If this was such a money loser, I don't see how the service could last as long as it has.
For us, originally, town-wide wireless was a necessity. Internet access is now a major factor in people's decision on where to live. And when the larger internet companies would not lay high broadband cables out to us, we took it upon our selves to fix the problem.
The solution is a local-government run Internet provider. And although I had early issues with stability, I have been more than happy with the quality of service over this year.
What happened to "community good" as cause? (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments should strive to provide services for as little cost as possible, but that doesn't mean that it should fail to provide a service at all if just because somebody declares it to be not cost-effective.
Guess what, public libraries are not cost-effective.
Public parks are not cost-effective.
I'm sure others can add their own examples. Cities provide these service because it benefits the residents and makes the city more attractive to others. E.g., it might encourage a company to locate new offices in this city instead of another to keep the employees happy, and unlike the usual "development incentives" these investments actually benefit the people, not a few executives.
Should cities provide wifi - even free wifi - in downtown and business areas? I think it should - because the public good (e.g., allowing people to check their email from anywhere in the area) outweighs the cost. If the city really, really needs to offset the cost it could impose a nominal head count on the employees in the area, and by "nominal" I mean $2/month/full-time equivalence person. It won't cover the entire cost but it's a symbolic gesture.
Bullshit headline... TFA says something different (Score:3, Interesting)
It shouldn't be hard to make the numbers work, provided that one can divide:
Finding 100 users per square mile should not be hard. Medium-density suburban lots are typically 0.3 acres, for an average of about 1000 houses per square mile (including a factor of 50% for infrastructure). So if one in ten households uses the WiFi regularly, the system breaks even at the stated price.
City centers might have a factor of 10 more people in them; so if 1% of city core dwellers use the WiFi regularly, the system is working.
On the other hand, low-density suburban areas might have only 100-500 households per square mile; those areas might not get enough users to make sense.
The study ignores something (Score:3, Insightful)
The study ignores a basic item: the municipalities that're looking at this are doing so because they can't get broadband service to residents any other way. Whether it'd be more expensive than private service isn't relevant if the private companies won't provide service in those areas. When one of the lobbyists for the cable and telephone companies gets up and blasts the cities for wanting to waste taxpayer's money, I'd love a legislator from the affected area to get up and ask "So then, will your company agree right here and now to provide broadband service at a price no greater than what we're proposing (that you say is too expensive)? What's that, you won't? Then if you won't provide service why are you complaining that it's unfair that we go ahead without you?".
Re:Here it comes... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do want to know one thing, however.
Consider that the last bastion of true lassaiz-faire capitalism is organized crime, and the mixed economy has become the norm in the civilised world.
Consider the number of services that are provided through the city or town you live in, either directly or through contracts with utility companies. Do you really think