Odd article starts out looking at conflict between government agencies and private companies: But the information about government bodies using Wi-Fi is off-base. For instance, the piece notes that many airports are run by government agencies that offer Wi-Fi in the terminals, presumably for free. All the large commercial airports I know of that have Wi-Fi charge for the service and most use third-party companies to manage the networks. Perhaps the author is referring to smaller airports for private planes?
The article also points to the fact that agencies like the FCC run their own Wi-Fi hot spots in their lobbies. So does the author think that instead Wayport ought to offer service there? It seems reasonable to me that the FCC should offer its own Wi-Fi service to its workers and visitors.
This is a pretty misguided article by someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of the free vs. fee topic.
Hi Glenn,
Ironically, I believe WiFi will suceed as a business on its own; (instead of being a fringe benefit at a hotel or cafe) if it avoids the Broadband trap and adopts a version of cellular business model. Broadband was slow to catch on because it was competing with Flat pricing of dialup with much higher cost of deployment and limited availability. There always was a demand but carriers could not supply and where they could it was not cost-effective. Currently, they are in flat pricing mode but eventually occasional users wouldn't want to subsidize the heavy dowwnloaders (even more true on limited wireless bandwidth if WiFi ever evolves to 802.16a like stuff).
So, the trick is not Free vs Fee but pricing structure that is profitable and attractive for customers to try out even if they are unlikely to be heavy users. Right now, if you just occasionally want to log in at a Starbucks you still pay the same as regular business user so casual users are deterred.
My 2 cents :)
Regards,
Hitesh
Great discussion. I thought I would share these links as well.
Mesothelioma,
Coral Calcium, and
Pro Football Betting