Network Computing is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Metro Wi-Fi: RIP?: Page 2 of 2

The story gets really interesting when Comcast enters the
fray, first by opposing a ballot measure that authorizes Longmont to act as a
broadband service provider (it also owns a fiber network), and then by
instigating the establishment of a citizens' group established to oppose efforts
by Longmont to leverage their network infrastructure. Both Settles and
Fleishman seem to enjoy vilifying incumbent service providers with
Settles portraying Comcast as "The Empire" and their attorney as Darth Vader. I
can't help but feel some empathy for this point of view, given the abysmal
record service providers have in greasing the wheels of government by
bankrolling campaigns of politicians and mounting various secret and
not-so-secret lobbying efforts to advance their own interests. They provide
great case studies for the legalized corruption that is so typical of American public
policy deliberations.

Despite my skepticism about the wisdom of running a metro
Wi-Fi network, I'm hoping Longmont wins the freedom to make that decision. The
notion that government has an unfair advantage in providing essential services
to its citizens strikes me as capitalism taken to its worst extreme. In
particular, the notion that governments should be prevented from building out
essential network infrastructure (e.g., running fiber through established
right-of-ways), reflects a warped view that government can do no right and
business can do no wrong.

If Longmont wants to run their own
metro Wi-Fi network and their local political environment supports such a
strategy, why should they be prevented from doing so? Is Comcast really afraid
of the competition? In the end, it is likely that Longmont will conclude that
other civic priorities (education, public works, parks and recreation, etc.)
are worthier endeavors with greater public benefits. Rapid technology
evolution and economies of scale argue against municipalities as wireless
service providers. As for metro Wi-Fi, I think the future is clear. It's the
wrong technology for the job.