|
Videos
June 28, 2010 By News Report
In recent years, Minneapolis has been one of the key cities working to get its residents connected to free Internet. In 2006, the city signed a contract with USI Wireless to build a citywide wireless network.
Now as part of that ongoing effort to bridge the digital divide, the city announced 117 "Wireless Minneapolis" hot spots for residents and visitors to access the Internet for no charge.
"A wireless city benefits everyone in the community whether you're a resident, business owner or visitor," said City Council Member Gary Schiff, chair of the city's Information Services Policy Steering Group, in a statement. "By investing in the tools, training and technology necessary to increase Internet access for all, we've found new ways to connect to our community and for our community to connect to the world."
When connected to one of the hot spots, users can access any website on the Internet for up to one hour. When that time expires, the session ends. But users can log on again for extended access. For homeland security purposes, a credit card will be required to access the Internet at a hot spot, but the card will not be charged, according to the city.
The 10-year contract between Minneapolis and USI Wireless, a private company, was established to provide the city with broadband technology that delivers more effective and efficient Internet services. In choosing the locations for the hot spots, the city looked for places with a high concentration of people, such as parks, plazas, schools and businesses. To find an access point, residents should look for signs that say, "Free Wireless Minneapolis Hotspot Courtesy: City of Minneapolis USI Wireless." The free wireless signal will be available up to 600 feet from the sign. For a list and map of locations, visit www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/wirelessminneapolis.
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Minneapolis-Delivers-Free-Internet-Access-to.html
.jpg)
What is Big Data? What can it do for you? 
Discover the BI capabilities you already own.
While it is attention-getting to announce "free" services, is it time to consider using other descriptive language when it comes to government services? Anything that appears to be free to the consumer or end-user is being paid for by someone, and in this case it looks like USI Wireless or Minneapolis taxpayers are footing the bill.
Reinforcing a "free service" mentality in the public mind, however, is both misleading and perhaps detrimental to the development of an informed understanding of civic life. Disconnecting the association of cost with the availability of service, and masking the the source and the amount of funding that's required to provide services do not make people more educated, aware and responsible consumers. This is a problem with "entitlements" of all stripes; people come to believe they are entitled to a service or benefit without an understanding of who really pays for that benefit and whether or not that source of funding is sustainable, justifiable or reasonable. I applaud the incorporation of signage that says "Courtesy: City of Minneapolis USI Wireless" as a step in the right direction but I think even clearer terminology could be used. Something closer to the ingredient labeling on food products may be one model. Perhaps Something like "This Wireless Hotspot Available At No Charge To Users; Annual Costs of $XXX to provide this service are paid by the City of Minneapolis, USI Wireless, etc." (the list in decreasing order of financial contribution). A standardized and more uniform presentation of this information will shed sunlight on otherwise murky services and operations. One way to establish and reinforce the relationship between taxes and services, and perhaps to better inform debate on essential versus non-essential services, is to embrace more forthright disclosure of costs and funding, and to abolish the word "free" as an adjective that's applied to government services.While it is attention-getting to announce "free" services, is it time to consider using other descriptive language when it comes to government services? Anything that appears to be free to the consumer or end-user is being paid for by someone, and in this case it looks like USI Wireless or Minneapolis taxpayers are footing the bill.
Reinforcing a "free service" mentality in the public mind, however, is both misleading and perhaps detrimental to the development of an informed understanding of civic life. Disconnecting the association of cost with the availability of service, and masking the the source and the amount of funding that's required to provide services do not make people more educated, aware and responsible consumers. This is a problem with "entitlements" of all stripes; people come to believe they are entitled to a service or benefit without an understanding of who really pays for that benefit and whether or not that source of funding is sustainable, justifiable or reasonable. I applaud the incorporation of signage that says "Courtesy: City of Minneapolis USI Wireless" as a step in the right direction but I think even clearer terminology could be used. Something closer to the ingredient labeling on food products may be one model. Perhaps Something like "This Wireless Hotspot Available At No Charge To Users; Annual Costs of $XXX to provide this service are paid by the City of Minneapolis, USI Wireless, etc." (the list in decreasing order of financial contribution). A standardized and more uniform presentation of this information will shed sunlight on otherwise murky services and operations. One way to establish and reinforce the relationship between taxes and services, and perhaps to better inform debate on essential versus non-essential services, is to embrace more forthright disclosure of costs and funding, and to abolish the word "free" as an adjective that's applied to government services.While it is attention-getting to announce "free" services, is it time to consider using other descriptive language when it comes to government services? Anything that appears to be free to the consumer or end-user is being paid for by someone, and in this case it looks like USI Wireless or Minneapolis taxpayers are footing the bill.
Reinforcing a "free service" mentality in the public mind, however, is both misleading and perhaps detrimental to the development of an informed understanding of civic life. Disconnecting the association of cost with the availability of service, and masking the the source and the amount of funding that's required to provide services do not make people more educated, aware and responsible consumers. This is a problem with "entitlements" of all stripes; people come to believe they are entitled to a service or benefit without an understanding of who really pays for that benefit and whether or not that source of funding is sustainable, justifiable or reasonable. I applaud the incorporation of signage that says "Courtesy: City of Minneapolis USI Wireless" as a step in the right direction but I think even clearer terminology could be used. Something closer to the ingredient labeling on food products may be one model. Perhaps Something like "This Wireless Hotspot Available At No Charge To Users; Annual Costs of $XXX to provide this service are paid by the City of Minneapolis, USI Wireless, etc." (the list in decreasing order of financial contribution). A standardized and more uniform presentation of this information will shed sunlight on otherwise murky services and operations. One way to establish and reinforce the relationship between taxes and services, and perhaps to better inform debate on essential versus non-essential services, is to embrace more forthright disclosure of costs and funding, and to abolish the word "free" as an adjective that's applied to government services.