But why? It's a good question -- one that deserves more than the lip service it's being given by its promoters.
Some try to persuade major metropolitan cities that the municipality must get into the business of providing broadband access because if it doesn't, its citizens will somehow fall behind or be left out of the "broadband revolution."
A similar argument goes that the city will fail to attract its fair share of new, upscale jobs if it does not have the "most modern" broadband infrastructure and access.
In fact, broadband Internet access is now available to more than 96.4 percent of all cable television customers, and competitively available to almost 80 percent of all telephone customers. Both cable and telephone infrastructures offer competitive broadband services in most major metropolitan areas.
To be sure, there may be an exception in very rural areas, but promoters are pushing for municipal Wi-Fi construction in places like San Francisco and Philadelphia.
Why?
Philadelphia already has more than 100 established Wi-Fi hotspots. Some of them, mainly in libraries, offer free use of the service and computers. Both cable modem and DSL service are also competitively available throughout the city.
"Access" is not the issue.
Adoption
That's when we usually hear the dire warning that "we" (usually in the context of the United States, not a given city) are "falling behind" in broadband adoption. That we have fallen from first to whatever the lowly number is this week. That number, however, relates to a percentage, not total users.
The United States is still first in total broadband users (around 70 million). True, we do not have the highest percentage of users. Smaller countries, like Liechtenstein and South Korea, with smaller populations and very dense population centers dominate that statistic for obvious reasons.
In the case of South Korea, a government-subsidized broadband system was built and promoted to a population living primarily in multiple dwelling units. That population was already "hooked" on video games, with 28,000 gaming parlors (one for every 1,700 residents). The parlors were popular because, unlike the case here, Internet access at home was restricted to metered dial-up use, which was both too slow for graphics-intensive games and too expensive for those playing the games for hours and days on end.
Thus, broadband was quickly adopted in South Korea since adequate alternatives did not really exist. That simply has no bearing on what is happening in the United States.
The "Digital Divide"
If the "access" argument doesn't fly, and the "we're falling behind" scenario is simply responded to by asking, "Behind what?" then there must be some other good reason for municipalities to jump into the already heated competition to provide broadband access.
Some point to the "digital divide." But how does a municipal Wi-Fi system change the digital divide?
Presumably proponents of government involvement in building a broadband infrastructure have some logical rationale for linking construction of that system to the resolution of the alleged divide. But no, that doesn't seem to be the case.
It may be true that folks at lower economic levels are not jumping on broadband as fast as higher-income families, but it's not because they don't have infrastructure access. It may be because they don't have computer skills or computers. But a municipality building a competitive broadband system addresses neither of those issues.
If indeed the community were concerned about a digital divide, then money would be better spent on teaching literacy and computer skills (which South Korea did) before worrying about building a redundant infrastructure. There might also be consideration of financing the purchase of computers, and maybe even subsidizing broadband connections -- like telephone connections are for some people now.
Follow the Money
Attracting business to the city is also one of those arguments that sound good, but there is virtually no evidence of its validity.
The primary remaining argument for building municipal Wi-Fi systems really seems to be "because we can." Many promoters of constructing redundant municipal Wi-Fi broadband systems have been heard from before. They are the same folks who wanted the city to build its own power, telephone or broadband system.
Anything they think looks like a "utility" can best be built with municipal financing, run as a utility service that "everyone" wants, and results in lower consumer costs because the system's full costs are spread among all residents, whether they fully utilize the system or not.
That works with power. It works with telephone in rural areas, but broadband Internet access is a very different beast. The municipal "utility" theory does not really apply. Many cities belatedly learned of the financial problems when they tried to build and maintain municipal broadband systems with cable or fiber.
The costs are astronomical. The failures are too.
The Iowa Communications Network is being massively subsidized just to survive. California's CALNET was $20 million in debt when it was finally abandoned and sold in 1998. Lebanon, Ohio, projected a $5 million fiber network build that actually cost almost twice as much. The city now has to raise another $14.8 million to cover operating losses. Marietta, Ga., spent more than $35 million on its broadband network before selling it at a $24 million loss last year.
"But wait," proponents shout with glee. "Wi-Fi is much cheaper to install! Those huge broadband infrastructure costs no longer need to worry the city!"
The logic seems to suggest that if the splash of red ink from dropping the ball from 10 stories high was too big, then this is a much smaller splash since you drop it from only four stories up.
They miss the point: There is no strong reason for a municipality to build a redundant, competitive broadband system. No reason for any splash of red ink at all, especially if building such a network might, in fact, deter the private sector from building a new system or upgrading a system already in place there.
It's a true lose-lose situation.
Municipal Wi-Fi systems are not technically good at delivering "last mile" broadband into homes and apartment buildings. There are far better and more secure technologies for specific mobile municipal uses. Wi-Fi is best for discrete places like parks, libraries, convention centers, airports, coffee shops and the like.
Wi-Fi is a great technology for certain uses, and it is already spreading in the marketplace. So is broadband access. There is no real "why" to the push for commercial municipal Wi-Fi.
