Wireless Philadelphia
Recently I become aware of the Wi-Fi project in Philadelphia. The project purpose is to provide Wi-Fi broadband connection throughout the entire city. The goal of the project as defined in the Wireless Philadelphia executive committee is:
Philadelphias goal is to become the number one wireless city in the world and intends to set the standard by which wireless accessibility is measured. The city intends to enter into partnership with interested public and private parties to provide wireless access for the entire city.
The benefits that the city intends to gain from the project are both economical and social. The city believed that the project will make it more attractive to businesses and tourist as the economical side. The social benefits are to Delivering Public Services and to Investing in the People of the City which Ill discuss later in some length.
Providers of broadband services such of Verizon opposed the city project and attempted, by legislation in the state senate, to cancel this project . Verizon argued that:
City officials were going beyond the bounds of traditional government activity by providing wireless Internet connectivity to the public.
I’m aware to the fact that what I’m going to write here is not going to be popular and I might offend the few readers that visit this Blog. However I really believe that this project is not only waste of public money, it is actually dangerous involvement of the government and should be stopped.
On its face this project seems to Deliver Public Service. However it doesnt, in fact it does exactly the opposite. In this post Ill try to discuss to effects of this project and to demonstrate the reasons why this project is not justified.
This project, like any government project, is being funded by the public. This statement is not as simple as it become in the public discussion about the government funding. The first implication of using public funding for this project isthe door opening for content control. Since peoples money invested for the public interest, the public have the right to define what this interest is.
Not far is the day that the local government will start to look at limiting and controlling the content delivered in the public network. Since the content is delivered over public resource and might be offensive it will be blocked. This phenomena is not new, not should it surprised anybody it is executed now by the FCC on our airwaves censoring the radio and the national TV. How far is the day that we will read editorial by someone like Jeff Jarvis about the government controlling our culture? How far we are from having the government exercise its control about our culture in the same way the French Government does?
Additionally the statement of Delivering Public Services should be examined. In the brief for this project the delivering of public service is being defined as follow:
Governments are judged on how well they deliver services to their constituents and on the ability to provide those services at the low cost
.It is interesting to see how by creating Monopoly and using our tax money in addition to the low charge the government achieves this goal. It is obvious that initially the visible charge for the use of the network will be low. However the actual charge is higher than just the cost per use and includes additional components. The first component and the most obvious one is the tax money that is funding the project. This money is being paid regardless of use, any taxpayer is being charged if he/she uses the service or not. This additional money allows the government to offer such visible price that will drive any competition away. Moreover, if someone will decide to use Verizon of Comcast service the charges for these services are in addition for the tax charges that the city project receives. This unfair competition will naturally, and as happened in the past, will lead to monopoly. If monopoly in general is not in the public best benefit, the governmental one is the worst.
Lastly I would like to discuss in short, and not to its full disserved depth, the assumption that this project will help the lower economic classes to improve their situation. I would like to briefly explore the assumption that broadband, which is naturally more expensive then dial-up service, is necessary service. Im not sure that in order to receive the educational opportunities, job opportunities, and participation in many dimensions of modern society anybody need wireless broadband. Are we also going to pay for the laptop to use this network or the poor will be again left behind?
Technorati Tags: Libertarianism, Politic , Wireless Philadelphia, Monopoly, Laptops , Dial-up
No tag for this post.blog comments powered by Disqus
Add New Comment
Viewing 4 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
The impact on the "lower economic classes" is yet to be seen, but that aspect of this project more than likely will be left in the hands of the people (i.e. community organizations, local service groups, schools,and neighborhood groups).
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
As much as I think about the wireless project and the "lower economic classes" the points made in the project justification document seems more ridiculous. Nobody addressed the simple fact that there is nothing wrong with dial-up unless you need to download movies...
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
The idea of business run by the governmant is, by its nature, monopoly. Many countries found that state own business is very bad idea, I just wonder why are we going back to this idea?
Add New Comment
Trackbacks