While its effect might not be as direct as some city planners might like, municipal wireless, as proposed in Philadelphia, is worth a shot. It also presents some interesting questions about free goods.
Somewhat tangential economic discussion below the fold.Once the infrastructure is in place, the wireless is available freely to everybody within city limits. The city would also have to pay the costs of maintaining the system. In other words, this is not a money-making proposition. What might the incentive be then?
JetBlue provides its terminal at JFK with free wireless. A big reason is that JetBlue has the terminal to itself: Any passenger in that terminal is a JetBlue passenger. The wireless can be seen in two ways:
- a perk that you get when you decide to fly JetBlue, and
- a way to improve the JetBlue brand name.
As discussed on WorldChanging, telecom companies like Verizon quickly moved to block the efforts, citing the city's unfair advantage. Normally, I would be against the government taking on a project like this that could be done by a private company. There's just something incredibly ... cool ... about a "digital city." If a private company made a move to outfit an entire city with wireless, it would also benefit from the same sort of name recognition as JetBlue. Imagine the publicity! So how about it, Verizon? Cingular? Anyone?
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 11:48 pm
27 Jul 2005
Thanks to that philosophy enabling bushco inc., the US is 5 years behind japan in wireless broadband. They have moved on to wi-max already.
Purring US hi-tech hopelessly behind, just as their energy policy has put US behind in hybrid vehicles.
Fight on neo-libertarians!! Government can do nothing right? a self fullfilling prophecy when a nation elects a serial bankruptist as it's leader.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:55 pm
27 Jul 2005
Something the Israeli airline did a decade before.
It took the bushco team 3 years to do it. And one of the flimsy doors installed under bushco "contracting" (GOP bribe solicitation)was kicked through by a deranged passenger, only the passengers, knowing that they were the only ones who would act, saved the plane by restraining the out of control man themselves.
This is why Jetblue is the only profitable, stable, growing airline in the US. Leadership.
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 2:11 am
28 Jul 2005
Sounds like a contradiction to me. But I might be misreading you.
Permalink
Brian Hosey Posted 3:43 am
28 Jul 2005
Easily accessible, easily affordable internet access is increasingly a necessity for growing competitive communities and not merely a badge of hipness.
When all members of a community have access to the wealth of information, the job tools and the community building tools of the web then all members of the community benefit. Community members benefit, employers benefit (from a better informed workpool) and municipalities directly benefit from efficient delivery of services and information. If everyone is benefitting, then everyone should pay in for it. Hence internet access should be treated just like any other public utility: supplemented with taxes and affordable user fees.
Internet access is too important to communities to be left to the vagaries of the profit-driven market where, as the debacle of privatizing power utilities in California and elsewhere has demonstrated, community health and growth is not even an incidental concern.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:20 am
28 Jul 2005
Permalink
trouserdude Posted 7:31 am
28 Jul 2005
Aren't there already people living in many of these urban cores?
I don't know a great amount about these wi-fi plans for cities (I know that technology-wise, wi-fi is great), but I would be concerned about people who are already living there being priced out of the neighborhood by nature of folks moving in who could afford wi-fi laptops.
Does anyone know enough about this to address it?
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 11:01 am
28 Jul 2005
Permalink
accel2 Posted 11:55 pm
28 Jul 2005
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that it isn't one of the most revolutionary urban developments to occur since telephone and television. I think it would have a huge effect on the productivity, effiency, and EQUITY of cities - making essentially infinite information available anywhere, anytime, for anyBODY. Yes, you would need to have some kind of device to log on, but it doesn't have to be a laptop computer - may be wi-fi would finally spur our PDA/cellphone/wireless doodad device market to be on par with Japan and other places that are more quickly adapting the new permutations of technology. The story is not just "those who have laptops or blackberries" vs those who don't -- if you could access the internet through a souped up cellphone, and the internet access was free, then even the poorest people (who, as far as I can see in NYC here, all have cellphones despite whatever else they lack) would share in the bounty.
So, my opinion is that Wi-Fi wouldn't have any impact on the population of cities, but would definitely improve their quality of life and economic situation. Yes, that could eventually lead more people back to the cities -- but gentrification should be the last thing to worry about when most rust-belt cities are starved for any kind of investment.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:14 am
29 Jul 2005
Japan has already moved on to wi-max, bushco inc pandering for campaign "contributions" (bribes) from it's old line cable and phone company clients has put US hopelessly behind.
The 2000 coup killed the US hi-tech industry. that is why NASDAQ no longer has any pulse.
That coup was all about wall street versus silicon valley. Wall street won, america lost.
Japan and China are the big winners though, that is why the wealthy now invest in the asian economies instead of the US economy.
Bushco inc., bankrupting america! Nice voting duuuhbya supporters!
Have fun working at walmart until you are 70, or expire from lack of affordable, competent healthcare.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:20 am
29 Jul 2005
The quantity fans will flock to higher pay and cost of living areas, thankfully leaving the rest of US alone out here in what is left of paradise.
The lowly mosquitos and flies, mother natures very best human horde repellants! Thank goddess for those little irritators!!
Permalink
accel2 Posted 5:07 am
29 Jul 2005
Sure, go ahead and live in "paradise" -- it's nice, if you can afford it!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:06 am
29 Jul 2005
It's a niche economy. (Just as many are inclined to call renewables, a niche market)
Wages are lower and prices are lower for some crucial necessities like housing.
We mainly export paper and products that take a highly educated workforce with computer controlled machining, welding, and manufacturing.
The employers need those who were taught to read, write, do basic math, and operate computers to manufacture these products.
A diagram, as it was reported has to be used as a substitute for those skills by foreign manufacturers in some of the regions (red state southland) opposed to public education, will not provide the productivity needed from the workforce with these more complex operations.
Because of the higher quality of life, workers compete for jobs here even though the pay is less.
And the lower cost of housing means that young families can affird their own homes even on these reduced wages.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 3:54 pm
31 Jul 2005
Permalink