Minneapolis is quickly becoming the new poster child for the municipal Wi-Fi movement.
The city is expected to have the majority of its 59-square-mile network finished by the end of this month, and already experts are pointing to the nearly completed network as a model other cities should follow.
Over the past year, citywide wireless networks have gotten a bum rap. Halfway through 2007, EarthLink, which had been leading the charge with big contract wins to build and run networks in San Francisco, Houston, and Philadelphia, started unraveling its Wi-Fi strategy.
...
Having an anchor tenant, like the city, helps guarantee a hefty stream of revenue, but the residential consumer market also provides USI Wireless with an opportunity to grow its business and increase profits.
...
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9893450-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
What I found interesting about the "experts" was that they ignored the basic premise. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the $1mill+ that the city is spending. Taxpayers if they want service for themselves have to subscribe, so the wi-fi company is hitting them up twice in effect. If the wi-fi provider doesn't get enough subscribers who will cover thier costs? That's right the taxpayers.
the difference being, is that when the citizens are in a budget crunch a lot of time the expensive internet is one of the first things to go - So we can pay for the necessities.
When the city does it, necessities, like police and fire are the first cuts made but they still find bucks to spend on internet...
MTN, Comcast, USI Wireless and Minneapolis
http://s4xton.com/1628/mtn-comcast-usi-wireless-and-minneapolis/
Notes that Mimmeapolis is the; "Since Minneapolis is one of the first cities in the country to pursue such a project, we are he first to face – and resolve – the myriad of unanticipated issues that come along with such an ambitious endeavor."
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2008-meetings/20080215/docs/1_US...
Because there aren't any new business models for municipal wifi. Expenses have to be covered by revenue. That will never change. With muni wifi, politicians can pretend that basic economic law is otherwise, by using SUBSIDY.
You know what's so bizarre about muni rollouts? You can do them piecemeal. If the bill for the entire rollout is too much capital, then start with the yuppie sections first. As you secure a customer base, you can then add another square mile. Etc. But Americans no longer understand how to build businesses. So we get these grandiose plans to cover huge areas, which just creates a need for SUBSIDY.
Very true GZ.
I am a proponent of municipal wifi but I don't want a large subsidy created. Hence why I believe that the city should partner up with UT for that very purpose. It would bring UT into the fold more as a technology leader, it already has the infrastructure with their dial-up. Plus they could use state funds to fund it instead of using city funds.
Obviously I'm leaving out a lot of x's and o's that would need to be addressed but UT has proven itself to be a much more efficient entity than any form of local government or direct subsidy thereof.
MikeyA