Cities across the country have been exploring and implementing wireless broadband access for local business and residents.  While this may seem like a wonderful move initially, cities have been faced with opposition by local phone and cable companies who have quickly become up in arms about the threat to their business as internet service providers. 

 

Position of Phone and Cable Providers

 

            Current phone and cable companies that provide broadband internet access argue that, by permitting cities to install their own broadband Wi-fi networks cities will have an unfair competitive advantage over such services.[1]  For example, privately owned companies have to negotiate and purchase rights-of-way for their equipment while government enterprises can cede themselves such access.[2]  The point has also been made that “government owning the means of production” is the hallmark of communism.[3]  For some this is an automatic turn off and a means in and of itself to be against municipal Wi-fi service.

Verizon’s Senior Vice President for media relations, Eric Rabe has said, “Wi-fi as a public service has serious issues like network congestion and security.”[4]  He further questions, “do you really want your government handling your email?”[5]  Although Rabe’s statements may be far reaching, there are concerns over the security of such networks and the loss of individual privacy through their use.

            Several civil liberties groups have also taken issue with municipal Wi-fi networks.  Some cities have chosen to limit internet access by blocking pornographic sites and the ability to download copyrighted materials.[6]  There is a concern that governments may be practicing content based discrimination in violation of First Amendment rights by installing such filters that have a been known to block material that is otherwise completely legal.[7]

            It has also been suggested that it is unfair to force taxpayers to foot the bill for a risky endeavor like the installation and maintenance of municipal Wi-fi.  Questions arise whether costs to deploy and sustain such networks exceed city projections.[8]  There is also the concern that because of the government’s disincentive to compete there will be a reduced incentive to provide better products, services, and prices in the long run.[9]

 

Position of Cities and Municipalities

 

            The idea for public Wi-fi has been welcomed by city planners and local residents with open arms.[10]  Getting off the ground financially has been the most difficult barrier to overcome, but in the long run building such a Wi-fi network is ten times cheaper than the broadband cables that telecommunication companies have installed.[11]

            One of the strongest arguments for implementation of municipal Wi-fi involves the breaking of the “digital divide.”[12]  In other words, municipal Wi-fi is able to offer internet access at lower rates than competitive public companies.[13]  Some cities have even chosen to make such access completely free to the public.[14] 

            Low cost and free access would permit low income residents to log on to the internet that is currently unreachable due to high costs of monthly premiums.[15]  Access would also be expanded to include rural residents that are currently not reached by public broadband suppliers.[16]  John Nicoletti, manager of external affairs for Anaheim, California, which was the first major city to be completely covered in terms of Wi-fi service, has said that low cost Wi-fi will “level the playing field across all socio-economic status levels.”[17]

            The Tribal Digital Village and Champaign-Urbana Partnership is one example of breaching the so called divide.  Since enacting a digital Wi-fi network the Mesa Grande Indian Reservation received internet access for the first time.[18]  The impact on such communities, some of which previously did not have telephone access, has been immense.[19]

            Nicolettie also says that his city’s decision to offer wireless internet was also because it gives the city “a competitive advantage among cities”.[20]  Easy to access wireless internet is attractive to local businesses, potential future businesses, and travelers.  Some of the other benefits include the ability to use low cost VOIP or voice-over-internet protocol by city workers and immediate access to otherwise unavailable data while in the field like building pans, security camera shots, and criminal records.[21]

           

Legislative Responses:

 

States Reactions:

 

            There are currently 15 states that have laws limiting municipal broadband activities and one state that has such legislation pending.[22] Among these states, each of their chosen legislative schemes reflects variations of federal bills that have been introduced.  The Baller Herbst Law Group has created a wonderful white paper summarizing the bills of different states that were introduced in 2006 and an analysis of the impact of the bills introduced in 2005.

 

http://www.baller.com/pdfs/Baller_Proposed_State_Barriers.pdf

 

            Specifically, the much publicized debate that occurred in Pennsylvania in 2004 over municipal broadband is an example of how state legislatures have dealt with the problem.  On November 30, 2004, Governor Ed Rendell signed House Bill 30[23] (HD30) into law.  In the Governor’s message to the House of Representatives he explains that when it comes to the municipal ban on providing wireless networks to communities, this version of the bill allows existing systems to continue to operate and provides local governments a one-year window to develop such networks.[24]

            The Governor further states that, “Municipalities that are providing telecommunications service through a municipally owned or created network as of January 1, 2006 can continue to offer and provide the services ‘to the extent and scope’ that these services were provided before that date.”[25]  After this window closes, local governments must afford incumbent internet providers the right of first refusal to provide the proposed services. Only if the private internet competitor waives that right of first refusal may local plans go forward for providing wireless broadband internet access.[26] 

            When this Bill was signed into law Philadelphia’s local Wi-fi plans were becoming a serious concern to local service provider Verizon.[27]  Interestingly, right before the Bill was signed an agreement between the City of Philadelphia and Verizon was reached.[28]  Verizon agreed to waive its right of first refusal permitting Philadelphia’s proposed municipal wireless internet plan to go forward.[29]

            Along with Philadelphia, Pittsburgh has also been able to institute its own Wi-fi system in the downtown area.  Currently, the city offers two free hours of access per day in outdoor areas downtown, on the north shore, and the lower hill district.[30]  Higher bandwidth is available and can be purchased for $7.99 per day, $14.95 per month, or $119.99 per year.[31]

 

Federal Reaction:

 

            As of yet, several bills have been presented to the House and Congress but nothing has gone through.[32]  In the last session of Congress there were five different bills with various positions that were presented.[33]  Even though they did not go through it is important to be aware of the positions they present to best understand where the Wi-fi debate may be going.

-         H.R. 525 and S.2686 were both designed to overturn state legislation and promote municipal rights in all states to offer broadband services.[34] - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05252: & http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02686:

-         Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the “Community Broadband Act of 2005” permitting municipalities to offer low cost broadband and overturned state legislation that otherwise blocked municipal broadband.[35] - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1294:

-         Senator John Ensign (R-NV) introduced the “Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act” which would require local governments to consult with private sector broadband providers before embarking on a Wi-fi project (similar to PA’s legislation).  Already existing projects would be grandfathered in, but their further expansion would be controlled.[36] - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1504:

-         House Representative Pete Session (R-TX) introduced the “Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005” which prevents any city in which broadband is currently available from implementing public Wi-fi.[37] - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2726:

 

 

Conclusions

 

            Despite whatever legislation and competitive obstacles that may stand in their way, many cities and municipalities have continued to push forward with making municipal wireless internet access a reality for their communities.[38] Cable and phone companies cannot ignore such initiatives and many have since partnered with cities to help implement systems taking an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude.[39]

            What is left is to see how this wireless experiment works.  Will cities and municipalities succumb to all of the criticism that it is impractical from a financial and competitive standpoint for governments to provide Wi-fi service?  Or, instead will the benefits outweigh the risks and create a society where everyone has the ability to get online and have access the World Wide Web?

 

 

Links to Further Information

 

Municipal versus Private Providers

-         http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9005118

-         http://muniwireless.com/

-         http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,1874,1755892,00.asp

o       http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843722,00.asp

-         http://www.mywireless.org/

-         http://www.unpluggedcities.com/

-         http://www.w2idigitalcitiesconvention.com/

-         http://wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&id=978&language=english&specialId=

-         http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/techtracks/archives/2006/10/

      wimax_world_muni_wifi_debate.html

-         http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2005-10-04-wifi-networks_x.htm

-         http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6279772.html?spacedesc=Features

 

State and Federal Legislation

-         http://www.baller.com/barriers.html

-         http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=states

-         http://news.com.com/2100-1034_3-6039636.html

-          

Pennsylvania

-         http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PJR/is_47_2/ai_n8572029/pg_1

 

Cities

Alexandria, Va

-         http://www.wirelessalexandria.com/

 

Anaheim

-         http://user.govoutreach.com/anaheim/faq.php

 

Atlanta

-         http://apps.atlantaga.gov/wirelessAtlanta/index.asp

 

Philadelphia:

-         http://philadelphia.wifi.com/?gclid=CLm8xtOvz4oCFQrMPgodYVMvgA

 

Pittsburgh:

-         http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/

      aboutPDP_servicesAndInitiatives_wiFiDowntownPittsburgh.aspx

-         http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/mayor/assets/06_WiFiFactSheetweb.pdf

-         http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_492428.html

 

San Francisco

-         http://sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=54385

 

Earthlink (partner in helping many cities initiate wi-fi service) - http://www.emnwifi.net/