Is the new model for municipal networking one in which private companies offer to bear the full expense? If so, this defangs two muni-Fi-opposing arguments: taxpayer money at risk and public competition with private firms.
Philly paper praises EarthLink plan: The unsigned editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer praises the executive branch and Dianah Neff for developing a plan that has raised the city's profile and attracted a bid that won't cause any money tsorres for the town. The editors critique a recent performance by incumbents testifying in front of the city council: "In testimony, they all but patted Neff patronizingly on the head, saying the city should leave the 'competitive, challenging and risky business' to the pros in the field, i.e. them."
I was amused by this as well because the bidders for many municipal networks are now firms that are pretty good at the risky stuff involved in building networks.
Milwaukee offered $25 million municipal network at no cost: Midwest Fiber Networks would build the network in exchange for access--on what terms, it's not mentioned--to city facilities, like conduits. As this reporter has written a number of times, facilities are one of keys to muni-fi: rooftops, poles, conduits, and electricity are expensive and only electricity is a commodity. All the rest requires lots of negotiation, sometimes taking years, for private companies to obtain.
The financial details aren't clear yet, nor what the company would charge. It sounds like they are partnering for a wholesale model in which ISPs handle the public side. The mayor stressed that the deal would be non-exclusive. Still, it's hard to imagine that if there isn't a city-wide privately own fiber infrastructure today that Midwest Fiber would have competitors. Especially if Midwest can sign a comprehensive deal that encompasses facility use.
[links to both articles via the fine people at The Wireless Weblog]