OT: (is this OT?) ["Tempe ... isn't alone"] www.computerworld.com on municipal wifi woes

[Joshua Zeidner]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Craig White <craig at tobyhouse.com> wrote:
>
>  On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:28 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
>  > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Mike Schwartz <schwartz at acm.org> wrote:
>  >
>  > >  [4]   "[...] the municipal Wi-Fi market isn't dying. [...] But, [...]
>  > >  "taxpayers have lost so far." "
>  >
>  > >  --
>  > >  Mike Schwartz
>  >
>  >   as I've noted on this list before, Muni Wifi was pronounced dead
>  > before it was ever even born.  'Taxpayers have lost so far'?  And how
>  > many complaints do we get on this list about COX service?  The last
>  > thing the telcos want is a network owned by a regional municipality,
>  > and the last thing they want is a low-cost budget option for people
>  > who neither want or need a high-speed connection.
>  ----
>  Obviously the consumer was the last consideration of Tempe's Muni WiFi
>  system and that becomes evident by the failure to launch. It's not that
>  conceptually the idea doesn't work but conceptually, it was lacking from
>  the word go. The city of Tempe sought only to figure out how to make it
>  practical for an independent contractor to operate and left the issues
>  of sales to Tempe residents to that contractor.

  As was pointed out on the AZIPA list, the contractor that was chosen
was not even an AZ in-state contractor (as if there were none
available).  The way the whole thing proceeded was, at the least,
highly questionable.

>
>  Lessig discussed the last mile and considered it from another point of
>  view, one that municipalities can't seem to get their head around...that
>  their own investment in the last mile of services made it a much better
>  community for everyone and Tempe didn't make an investment, they made it
>  a freebee for themselves so that they could use the wireless free
>  expecting the citizens to subsidize the costs. It could be said that the
>  city of Tempe had it backwards.

  Can we have some names here?  Who was in charge of the project?  Who
chose the contractor?  Who was ultimately responsible for the failure?
 Lets not talk in these comfortable vagaries here, behind the facade
of 'government' lies people, and more importantly: culpability.

>
>  As for the telcos not wanting competition...of course, and the telcos
>  must be protected at all costs, right?

  right!  http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AT

>  ----
>
> >   given that at this point we *know* that the government is tapping
>  > all internet communications, don't you think that various agencies may
>  > have played a role in making sure ownership of US national network
>  > infrastructure is centralized?
>  ----
>  I suppose, but their desire is to support larger, monolithic
>  corporations.

  I suppose it is an example of a broader trend, but what should be
highlighted here is that it is likely that these *surveillance
interests* no doubt took zoned in the municipal networking movement,
and most likely influenced it in a destructive way.  You've got to
love it that we pay these people to do these things.

   - http://www.joshuazeidner.com/