Receive new posts as email.
RSS 0.91 | RSS 2.0
RDF | Atom
Podcast only feed (RSS 2.0 format)
Get an RSS reader
Get a Podcast receiver
| Sun | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
This site operates as an independent editorial operation. Advertising, sponsorships, and other non-editorial materials represent the opinions and messages of their respective origins, and not of the site operator or JiWire, Inc.
Entire site and all contents except otherwise noted © Copyright 2001-2006 by Glenn Fleishman. Some images ©2006 Jupiterimages Corporation. All rights reserved. Please contact us for reprint rights. Linking is, of course, free and encouraged.
Powered by
Movable Type
« New Bluetooth Profile Extends Automotive Hands-Free Use | Main | Quiet Addition of 255 MHz in 5 GHz for 802.11a, Backhaul »
Chicago is starting plans to have a Wi-Fi network built across its nearly 230 square miles: The city’s CIO said companies will be asked to talk about how they might build the network, which sounds like an RFI (request for information) rather than a more concrete RFP (request for proposals). The CIO said quite firmly that no city money would be involved in building or operating the metro-scale network.
Oddly, Steven Titch of the Heartland Institute, a perennial opponent to the construction of municipal telecom, is quoted as being in favor of this approach. It’s possible there’s a subtlety missing in his quote, or that the institute has moved to supporting cities that are essentially franchising the building of wireless networks. But this jibes with the statement earlier this week by the CTIA, the cell industry trade group, that it’s not opposed to these kinds of networks, either, as their members might bid on them. Update: Titch confirms (see comments below) that his views are accurately represented and notes there’s no connection with the CTIA statement. He also points readers to reason.org for more on the franchised city-wide network topic.
One commentator noted that if you stop calling a municipally requested network a “municipal network” and call it something else, like metro-scale or city-wide, you suddenly remove the notion that the city is controlling or funding it. That semantic change may be significant.
The RFI or RFP will be issued in spring with recommendations for the mayor and city council before fall.
Posted by Glennf at February 17, 2006 10:59 AM
Categories: Municipal
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://db.isbn.nu/mt3/mt-tb.pl/3477
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chicago Plots Wi-Fi:
» Chicago Wi-Fi Planning Underway from Somewhat Frank
According to a recent report by the Chicago Tribune the city is looking offer a free wi-fi grid to blanket the city of Chicago. This will help to bring Chicago up to speed with San Francisco [with help from Google] [Read More]
Tracked on February 18, 2006 7:26 AM
» Chicago Plots Wi-fi from BroadbandIssues.com
Wi-Fi Networking News:One commentator noted that if you stop calling a municipally requested network a “municipal network” and call it something else, like metro-scale or city-wide, you suddenly remove the notion that the city is controlling or fun... [Read More]
Tracked on February 20, 2006 5:52 AM
The Tribune quoted me accurately, but the article did not get into some of the other questions I raised: particularly transparency. Even if there's little or no financial risk, the city is placing political capital on the line. They want the municipal service to succeed. If Chicago, as in Philly's case, takes the role of "anchor tenant," providing much of the cash flow in for the early years, there should be enough transparency to ensure city departments that don't have -- and never will need -- wireless communications aren't suddenly given six-figure budgets to "spend" on wireless services.
There's also the question of whether the city can single out one contractor for special ROW rates, or whether the rate offered to one must be offered to all. I understand that Philadelphia is trying to pin this down.
Still, on the whole, these franchise-like agreements are less egregious than putting city resources at risk. My opinion on this did not spring from the CTIA announcement, as Glenn hints. You can find similar thoughts at the Out of Control blog at www.reason.org that go back a few months.
Posted by: Steven Titch at February 20, 2006 9:09 AM
Glenn, you hit the nail on the head with this insight about the difference in a name. I think there is a significant difference in a "city" (an urban area), a "municipality" (an urban area under a single government - or, the government itself), and a "metropolitan area" (a larger contiguous urban area). That's why I call them MetroNets - no government, no city. But there's more to the lack of objections by the Heartland Institute and the CTIA.
When the municipal government forswears any capital or operating expense, they're removing much of the objection from arguments made by the Titches of the world. You have to wonder what would be left to object to - Chicago's CIO is prudently seeking to bring more value into his city by taking this initiative, thereby creating opportunity for the private sector at next to no risk for the taxpayers. Ironically, by taking "the pledge" to spend no money on the network, city planners can actually make it more attractive to a private sector partner to jump in. Reminds me of how TXU split the bill with Current Communications, leaving the network to Current, but granting them a long-term service contract to lower their risk. I hope we see more of this model. How about a "NextGen MetroNet?" Works for me.
Posted by: John Cooper at February 17, 2006 7:04 PM