Okay, it's ironic that I'm being cited in a Heartland Institute article: The article, written by a research director at the Pacific Research Institute, criticizes San Francisco's broad, possibly somewhat unnecessary efforts at building citywide Wi-Fi. PRI is based in San Francisco. The article has some problems in the details, and I've written the author. I wasn't misquoted, but I'd rein in the scope as I was referring specifically to the problem of achieving all parameters, not building the network at all. SF will be hard-pressed to not pay its winning bidder a cent but require service cheaper than comparable offerings.
However, I, too, am scared at a "Wi-Fi or bust" mentality that SF has demonstrated time and again. Other cities with arms'-length plans--like Portland, Ore., and Minneapolis--may have some issues with essentially franchising a private provider, but they also will spend not a dime and aren't dictating monthly subscriber rates while having a longer chunk of time to consider bidders who will have longer to build a network. (Portland wants some free-for-short-periods-of-time or bandwidth-limited-free access, but it's not the point of the network.)
I've spent way too much time on this subject matter--detractors and supporters of municipal networks, which often goes far beyond Wi-Fi and broadband wireless--taking apart reports like this, and there are some elements of this one that I'd praise. Instead, I'll post reader comments (follow the link below) and link to other sites that comment on this.
But I can't just be quoted in a Heartland Institute article and not, you know, comment on (and honestly enjoy) the irony. Hard to call me 100-percent one-sided biased know-nothing if I'm quoted by one side of this debate's principal ideological organization. ('Course I'm not either pro- or anti-muni.)
Glenn,
Other than your out-of-context comments, this report is all rehash. We know that $14.95 broadband comes with all sorts of strings attached and that the "facts" describing muni BB "failures" are out of context or based on out-dated technologies.
I have been up on Captiol Hill several times in recent months and have been talking to a variety of private players in the "first mile" broadband business. Attitudes are changing in the former and new entrants are being enabled by new technologies such as Wi-Fi mesh in the latter. Already we have the Barton Bill in the House with protections for muni deployments. We are on the cusp of some interesting public-private partnership announcements that go a long way to meeting the unfulfilled needs of cities for low-income access and municipal automation, without city funds. The disaster-recovery capabilities of Wi-Fi mesh as demonstrated by part-15.org, MCI, Intel, Tropos and others is impactfully highlighting to the Feds and the states both yet another compelling reason to get this technology up in US cities fast.
Based on these developments, I am confident that the market is sorting out the true benefits of Wi-Fi mesh, and you will see interesting announcements and real big-player, big city proof-points soon. Then we can focus our journalistic energies on reporting the real facts, as opposed to the manufactured ones. Because of the efforts of early courageous participants in the market such as yourself, cities like St. Cloud, FL are already seeing their public policy objectives fulfilled, consumers in places like Moorhead, MN the benefits of more first mile competition in the form of no-strings-attached lower prices, and we are already building more robust communication systems in the face of disasters like Katrina.
Soon we will have some even higher-profile players and successes to report on. Let's focus on those.
I think that even suggesting Heartland is a legitimate "side" to this debate validates the practice of warping statistics for political purpose at the behest of obfuscated funding sources.
They aren't a "side", they're a well funded public relations tool.