Home
German Site
Russian Site
Archives
Friends
Chat
Feedback
Previous Issue

Any City or US Zip

Most everyone has heard about the City of Philadelphia's plan to build a city-wide Wi-Fi network. And you may have also heard that cellular companies, such as Verizon, are opposed to the plan. Of course this makes the cellular companies look like the "bad guys". But are they? What is the real story?

This morning, CNET is featuring a Perspectives column titled Hands off our Wi-Fi network by Dianah Neff (sorry I misspelled your name earlier, Dianah), the city of Philadelphia's Chief Information Officer, promoting their plan.

I think Diana's (Wi-Fi) arguments are pure baloney.  In the first place, I think it is much more than just "tax exempt funding" that concerns the phone companies.  And it should concern more (industries, and people) than just the phone companies!  It should concern everyone!

No business can compete, on equal footing, with a government.  Not even Wal-Mart could compete with a municipal government.  Talk about a monopoly!  A municipal government is a monopoly with law-making power!

Does anyone want the "government" printing their morning paper?  Or broadcasting their "evening news"?  Do you think you'll get fair, unbiased coverage?

And while Ms Neff rails against cable and phone companies, who created those monopolies (and former monopolies) in the first place?  Has anyone out there seen any competition in their local cable service, or rates?  Most cable companies are granted an exclusive franchise by the municipality they serve.  And the municipality typically gets "a nickel" for every signal that goes down the "pipe" along the city-owned easements (also known as your front yard).  See all those wires running from pole to pole down the street?  The city gets a percentage of the revenue from all of them!  And that is what this is really all about!  As for the "exclusive cable franchise", the only thing keeping cable rates reasonable, is the threat of phone companies providing the same (or similar) services!

I could make a long list of other issues concern me greatly on this whole "municipal Wi-Fi" issue.  For now, I'll limit it to just a few:

1) First of all, is Wi-Fi really suited to this kind of city-wide service?  I think not.  I think that trying to turn a cheap home networking technology into a city-wide broadband system is like trying to turn CB radio into a city-wide wireless phone system.  It could probably be done.  But would anyone be satisfied with the quality of service?  No!  

2) Does the typical city have any expertise in providing this kind of service?  I don't think so.  City governments are not generally known for their efficiency!

3) Do municipalities have any business being in the middle of our person to person communications?  I think not.  I think it is "big brother" sneaking in the back door!  And only the "cheapskates" who have no vision, and no understanding of why things have never been done this way would even consider such a plan.

Finally, if I was on the board of a cellular company, I'd recommend sueing any city who built such a system for every dime of revenue we lost because of it.  And I'd probably recommend sueing the FCC for the billions we paid for our licenses!  If cellular is expensive it is because the licenses that guarantee the quality of service are expensive.  And the equipment to guarantee the quality of service is expensive.  On top of that, the municipalities such as Philadelphia make it very expensive to build such a network by making it it a very long, difficult, expensive process just to get zoning approval for vital cellular sites.  It has always been very strange to me how a city will make it a long, difficult process to get zoning approval for a single site claiming they are concerned about the appearance of a tower (or antennas on the face of a building).  Yet telephone poles are strung across the same city and they look like crap!

For the record, I have had City Managers tell me - if you want to build in my city, you better build on city property so that we get the (rent) revenue.  Otherwise, you will have a very difficult time.  And strangely enough, they don't seem to care at all what a tower looks like on city property! Go compare a city-owned tower to a cellular tower!

Several years ago, one city, Jackson, Mississippi, took a more direct (though no less undesirable) approach. They decided that all towers in the city would become the property of the city. I could be mistaken, but it is my understanding that you can not build a privately owned (cellular) tower in Jackson. The only way you can build one is to agree to deed it to the city. In my opinion, this is a blatant example of outright extortion. I asked representatives of one tower company why they hadn't sued the city of Jackson. They (generally) said they believed that the city of Jackson could make life very difficult for them! But they refused to elaborate.

If you really want wireless broadband, support your cellular company!  The cellular companies are taking huge (financial) risks trying to build it as fast as they can!  And you can help!  Ask the FCC to lower the cost of licenses!  And ask your city to get rid of their ridiculous zoning limitations on cellular!  Give the cellular companies "eminent domain" rights so they can put antennas where they need them, like the phone and electric companies have always had!  Cellular companies are not getting rich providing you with top quality phones and service!  (And if you are getting less than top quality service, it is exactly because of the difficult licensing, leasing, and zoning situations caused by municipal government!)

More News