Does the city of Wichita know what it’s getting into with plans for citywide wireless Internet access? More than 170 towns and cities nationwide have launched wireless systems, and an equal number have plans to go wireless. But some second thoughts are in order, according to this Associated Press article.
It seems that many city wireless projects are costing more than expected and falling short of their subscription goals, meaning taxpayers might have to foot the bill. And in some towns, private wireless providers have moved to undercut city services.
“I will be surprised if the majority of these are successful and they do not prove to be drains on taxpayers’ money,” said Michael Balhoff, a telecommunications analyst. “The government is getting into hotly contested services.”
Wichita needs to take a hard look at its wireless business plan before going too far down this road.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
22 Comments
Our city wastes millions on an arena we don’t need, underhanded land deals to political cronies, airline flight subsidies and other nonsense. On the other hand people and businesses can use internet services.
I’d prefer my 1% sales tax to go to wireless internet, not some arena where a ticket cost more than a month’s worth of Cox internet service.
Even as a LIBERAL I would say that this is one area that should be left to the private sector. If people want it, they will deliver it. Secondly, I would say that we already have city wi fi in most places because I can usually always find an open wireless connection about anywhere.
Are my eyes deceiving me? Is this an expansion of government that Randy Scholfield is questioning?
Michael Balhoff has spoken out against wireless projects throughout the country. He has never, that I have been able to find, demonstrated one factual case of problems, but is continually ringing the bell of doom.
Makes me question his motivation.
Maybe those “cost overruns” could be controlled by using local vendors?
Thinking of you Tony!
City wide wireless seems a good idea. But I think the only city / government involvement is to define the services needed, pick the best potential provider, review where they want to put the equipment and antennas and have them pay a fee to the city for use of city poles etc …. As part of the licensing, the company should provide the city free of charge, any wireless services it needs to conduct police, fire and other city business …..
What the city ought to consider is applying for a Dorgan-Burns grant for not only the wireless, but to put fiber optic lines in older areas of the city.These lines could then be leased to AT&T, Verizon and even Cox (Des Moines has done this) to provide more income to the city.
Has the City actually made the case that it should provide so-called free wireless Internet access? There are some legitimate government agencies that can benefit from a Wi-Fi network. However it’s not something that government should provide for the people.
Smells like a campaign-contributor-back scratch-vote-buying scam.
I think ProudMan has a point. I can only imagine how expensive it will be for us to provide free Internet service to people.
And then there’s this, as reported in the Eagle: “… Azulstar told the city that the company would work with local banks to set up low-interest microloans that would help low-income families buy computers.”
How much will we have to subsidize banks to get them to make these loans that they presumably aren’t willing to make right now?
My daughter has a wireless laptop,
She is on the computer, online, all the time.
She never has subscribed to internet service, she doesnt need to, she can tap in to someone elses all the time!
Kev, we agree on something!
Thanks KFG!
Well, this WiFi thing is getting interesting… It appears that Mr. Brewer didnt even know there was a local bidder… There is something fishy going on in this WiFi deal…
Ok, now that I have a few moments to talk, let me stick my 2 (dozen) cents in.
The problem with most WiFi systems built in other cities is that they build them to be utilized by the public and only somewhat by government. The problem is that it depends on subscribers to fund it.
Here in Wichita, the original RFP that was released by the city was for a Wireless system build exclusively for the use of four groups, The City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, USD 259 and Westar Energy. Between the 4 groups, there is enough, perhaps too much, use to justify the costs. Between all 4 entities, there are over 1000 mobile units, there are 300-400 fixed locations and numerous other uses that would require access. Other uses inquired about in the RFP included video surveillance, traffic light monitoring, parking meter reporting, automatic electric, water and gas meter reading/reporting and vehicle tracking.
With everything that the 4 wanted, there isn’t much room for the general public. The RFP that went out favored a private WiFi network that would be run and administrated by the company installing it but used exclusively for those 4 organizations. There is an option of allowing other organizatiaons on to the system, but only if the original 4 groups elected to allow them.
My point in all of this is that the public is going to fund any WFi system built, lets build it properly and use it to its full potential. This will save each group money and allow so many more things to be done which intern will save us money in the long run. Build it for those groups first, open it up to other groups than open it up to the public, but I doubt there will be any capacity left in the network to do too much more. We should not expect to make money on any WiFi System, just that it saves us money by replacing existing hard-line systems…
“These lines could then be leased to AT&T, Verizon and even Cox (Des Moines has done this) to provide more income to the city.”
AT&T does not lease fiber or outside plant. We install our own and other people lease it from us. I work for at&t- formerly Cingular.
“My daughter has a wireless laptop,
She is on the computer, online, all the time.
She never has subscribed to internet service, she doesnt need to, she can tap in to someone elses all the time!
Kev, we agree on something!”
When I travel I have never had trouble finding an open wireless connection. I was sitting at the beach with the laptop last month in Florida and there were so many of them from the condos across the street that I could choose from about 12. I also leave my connection open on purpose but if anybody does it is a good ldea to have a firewall on your PC so somebody cannot use it to tap into your IP for your own computer.
What might make sense would be a more modest ‘hot zone’ just downtown. In fact, I wonder how large an area could be serviced from a single tower at, for example, Market and Main. Could tha area from the River to Washington from Kellogg to Central be covered?
A comment on the ‘open portals’ above: is that technically theft of services?
Ben, the problem is the buildings… For open access you have to have line of sight. You could place an access point on top the light pole at Main and Douglass and get all the way to old town, as long as you are ON douglass, you step 10 feet to the north or south, you will loose it because of the buildings. Same thing north and south. So, in a heavly dense area like downtown, you have to have dozens of Access Points setup in a Mesh configuration to completely cover. My estimate was 22 AP’s for downtown at an approxment cost of 3.5k ea (install included).
Thanks Tony. My overall point stands – just focus on the downtown area. Perhaps it could be funded as a benefit district – the office buildings downtown; bars in Old Town etc. Then the rest of us don’t pay since we are not down there.
I find it interesting the number of people I’ve met that have no trouble using other people’s internet connection. Without permission, you are stealing.
It’s no different than taking a bicycle out of an open garage and returning it later. You still took something.
I think a seperate network like what you are speaking of would be great for the downtown area. I would also build “hot spots” at each public park and public gathering building to promote getting people outside, yes, event to work…
“I find it interesting the number of people I’ve met that have no trouble using other people’s internet connection. Without permission, you are stealing.
It’s no different than taking a bicycle out of an open garage and returning it later. You still took something.”
EXCUSE ME??? If I take your bike and use it, I am depriving you of the use of it while I have it. When I surf on your wireless, you can still use it as well. In fact, you won’t even know I am there!
And by leaving your wireless connection open, you have in effect given permission for others to use it.
Kev,
Stealing is stealing. Just because someone may not notice your intrusion doesn’t mean you didn’t intrude.
There is no excuse for it. Much less a reason.