San Francisco municipal Wi-Not

San Francisco, like a number of other cities, is working to build municipal Wi-Fi. Essentially, it government-provided Internet connectivity, intended to cover every square foot of the city. It has not been done successfully to date, and the jury is still out on whether any city will have a functioning system that the citizens want.

San Francisco is always a bit unique and our muni Wi-Fi is a great lesson in why lefties never get anything done. They are successful in preventing others from doing things, sure (keep that in mind during tomorrow’s protests), but this account over at Metroblogging SF demonstrates why we really don’t want government doing this.

The city has accepted a proposal by Earthlink and Google, which would provide both free low-end connectivity and a higher speed commercial offering. But before building anything, after apparently sitting on their hands for the past year, the supervisors have decided that the process was not transparent enough.

I have no doubt that is true. But why are we surprised? And more to the point, shouldn’t this tell us that the city should not be in the business of providing direct commercial services?

I am not a proponent of municipal Wi-Fi as it is currently imagined. I think a commercial market is much more effective at aiming resources where they are actually needed. Note that such a market has not developed to date; this tells me that the demand for muni Wi-Fi is speculative at best.

If the city wants to argue that this is a welfare offering to those who cannot afford it, let’s describe it as such, and approach it as the city does with other services. Let the city provide Internet connectivity in public spaces, such as libraries and parks. That is the proper scope of city services.

Then, for the majority of the city which is not financially needy, let us put in place some rules to encourage commercial development. The city should provide non-discriminatory rights-of-way for any commercial provider that wants to build a network. This means providing access to utility poles and the like, for a standard and minimal license fee.

Let network providers build a network as they see fit, offering their own combination of price, performance and content. Ad-supported? Fine. Flat fee? Sure. Per megabit? If you wish. As soon as the city starts meddling (making claims of “red-lining” and such), they will quickly find that no one will want to build a network.

If we achieve both those things, I think the city will have more than done its part. My personal opinion is that no one is really demanding, in a here’s-my-money sense, a ubiquitous Wi-Fi network. Of course, many people will yell and scream and otherwise opine, but when it comes down to investing money, they simply haven’t. This is not a tragedy, it just means that we’ve got better solutions and/or higher priorities for our $$.

Comments

[kimocrossman]

well the San Francisco WiFi initiative is all about a backroom deal between Mayor Newsom and Google. Another franchise handled poorly to the detriment of the city as a whole.

If you watched the hearings today (May 1st, item 7) posted in 24 hours here:
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8
you could see a lot of questions the WiFi so far. Privacy questions, why isn't the city's 29 mile fiber backbone considered? is there a way for the city to provide a part of the solution to keep some control and still promote competition - think of the roads we pay for but all the activity on them. Lots of interesting questions - more discussions for the future on balances that may be best for the citizens.

next hearing is May 19th, 1pm PST LAFCO
http://www.sfgov.org/site/lafco_page.asp?id=38962

you can watch it online here:
http://sfgov.org/site/sfgtv_index.asp?id=11463

And lastly my blog on the whole SF WiFi dealio
http://www.webnetic.net