If Wi-Fi can make it in New York, it can make it anywhere.
New York City lawmakers are taking a long, hard look at using 802.11-based Wi-Fi or some other technology to get the city's roughly 8 million citizens access to broadband.
New York's interest in municipal broadband comes just as the citywide Wi-Fi buzz hits a fever pitch. Other cities, such as Philadelphia, New Orleans and San Francisco, have already started down the Wi-Fi path, but if New York builds out its own Wi-Fi network, it will be the biggest deployment of municipal Wi-Fi in the country, and perhaps the world.
"It's likely not a question of 'if' but 'when'," said Craig Mathias, an analyst with Farpoint Group of Ashland, Mass. "Every major city is going to have some kind of citywide Wi-Fi access. It will become an expectation like electricity or telephone service. But New York is definitely a challenge from a technology perspective. You may not be able to get it in every nook and cranny."
At this point New York is still in the very early stages of planning its broadband strategy. While cities like Philadelphia, New Orleans and San Francisco are moving full steam ahead on their projects, New York is still just trying to get a commission together to look at the issue.
On Monday, city council member Gale A. Brewer, chairwoman of the committee on Technology in Government, held a legislative hearing on a proposed bill that would create a special commission to advise Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city council on how the city can get affordable broadband access to all its residents. The goal of the commission will be to learn about the different technology options available and educate the public about them. The vote on the bill is scheduled for Dec. 21.
"The more hearings we have, the more I realize how complex this issue really is," Brewer said in an interview after the meeting. "The public needs to be informed about what we're trying to do. And I really want them to be demanding action from us. But in order to do that, they need to know the language of the technology, and the only way that happens is to have public discussion."
So far, Bloomberg hasn't endorsed the new legislation, but Brewer said she is confident he will support it.
Brewer and others see broadband--whether it be through Wi-Fi or some other technology like WiMax, broadband over power line, or even competitive DSL--as a way to spur economic development. Only about 40 percent of New Yorkers currently use a broadband service because it's too expensive, she said during the hearing.
Bridging the digital divide As with Philadelphia and San Francisco, New York officials want networks to be built that will bridge the digital divide so that even the city's poorest residents have affordable access to high-speed Internet connections. Andrew Rasiej, a technology entrepreneur and longtime technology advisor to city and state officials, testified before the committee on Monday. Rasiej, who ran for New York City public advocate in 2005, was pushing the idea of citywide Wi-Fi access as a major issue in his campaign. Although he ended up losing the election, Raisiej feels his campaign helped bring to light the Wi-Fi question for New York politicians.
"We're in the same situation that we were in back in 1934 when the federal government made universal access to telephones," he said. "Broadband is the dial tone of our time. It's long overdue that the city form some sort of committee to look at this issue. But today's efforts are a positive first step."
City broadband projects have been a hot topic during the past couple of years, as many smaller communities have started building their own fiber to the home networks or Wi-Fi networks. But critics have said that cities and municipalities should not get involved in building or operating their own networks, especially if it means using taxpayer money to do it. Telephone companies and cable operators around the country have effectively lobbied several state legislatures to pass laws restricting these networks.
While the state of New York doesn't have any of these kinds of laws on the books, experts in New York City say they are cognizant of these issues.
"The worst thing that could happen is for the city to try to build one these networks and have it fail," Rasiej said. "It would set the whole muni Wi-Fi movement way back."
Many city officials say they are against the city spending money to build out any kind of broadband infrastructure. But others insist that it can play a large role in creating a more competitive market for broadband services. Technology experts and community advocates believe the city can enter into a public-private partnership, such as the ones proposed in other cities.
For example, EarthLink, which has won bids in Philadelphia, Portland, Ore., and Anaheim, Calif., foots the bill for building the network. It will then offer Internet service over this network to city residents and provide the city with bandwidth for emergency and municipal use. EarthLink also plans to offer wholesale broadband access to other ISPs, giving customers even more choice. For their part, the cities provide access to public rights so that EarthLink can install the wireless radios.
San Francisco, which is still in the process of evaluating bids for its wireless network, is considering a similar model where it would allow a third party to build and operate the network.
Some technology experts fear that leaving the broadband issue entirely to the private sector could stifle innovation in New York City and put the city at a big disadvantage when it comes to attracting businesses.
"This notion that the private sector will take care of it just doesn't work," said Bruce Bernstein, president of The New York Software Industry Association, who also testified in front of the committee. "No one is sure if the Philadelphia project will really work. EarthLink has a business plan that's under attack. But the city's efforts are already attracting businesses to the city. I don't see a mass exodus to Philadelphia, but New York could be in trouble if we do nothing."
Correction: This article incorrectly stated the percentage of New Yorkers who are currently using broadband. Only about 40 percent of New Yorkers use a broadband service.
Since when does US, state or city government have the right or moral authority to enter markets that are held by private business? There are numerous companies that provide internet access in NYC and it shouldn't be the Mayor and the taxpayers' business to compete with them. The other way around where government provides a service first such as schools and business tries to break in, I have no problem.
How about we start a taxpayer run airlines so that visitors can come to NYC "free", or taxpayer run restaurants that serve "free" meals or taxpayer owned hotels.
But unfortunately governments already provide services that are offered by private industries. We have security companies and we have the police department. We have construction companies and we have public works departments. What is the L.A. DWP?
It's called serving the public good. Some things the public is just entitled to. Safety, infrastructure, and today communication systems.
Ms. Brewer is cited (but not quoted) as saying that broadband penetration in NYC is low because it is "too expensive". The proper interpretation of the statistic is that many New Yorkers do not consider broadband to be a priority for their $$. Is that not their right?
It also begs the question, how does the average income in NYC compare with other parts of the country? If one can afford to live in NYC, one can afford some level of broadband. It's not a question of affordability, it's a question of citizens making their own choices.
It is disingenuous to present municipal WiFi as being cheaper than commercial alternatives. It is not cheaper, it is simply a shift of the cost from consenting consumers to unconsenting taxpayers.
Even the poorest residents can get wi-fi on their laptops????
How poor can you be if you have a laptop with wi-fi??? This story is really a National Lampoon joke, right? The program is really just going to give people free broadband who can really afford to buy their own service on the open market from companies that provide the service.
Your right on the "money". If you can live in NYC you more than likely can afford the service of high-speed internet. Although roughly most of the NYers rarely spend anytime in their apartments versus work. But if we are able to remove the "dial up" ideaology from the greatest city in the world, then innovate away!
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
How about we start a taxpayer run airlines so that visitors can come to NYC "free", or taxpayer run restaurants that serve "free" meals or taxpayer owned hotels.
It's called serving the public good. Some things the public is just entitled to. Safety, infrastructure, and today communication systems.
It also begs the question, how does the average income in NYC compare with other parts of the country? If one can afford to live in NYC, one can afford some level of broadband. It's not a question of affordability, it's a question of citizens making their own choices.
It is disingenuous to present municipal WiFi as being cheaper than commercial alternatives. It is not cheaper, it is simply a shift of the cost from consenting consumers to unconsenting taxpayers.