Free Wi-Fi. Or not.

There seems to be a race on to provide major urban areas with free Wi-Fi. There also seems to be confusion as to who will foot the bill for the 'free' service. Philly was touted by WaPo as the latest city to get citywide Wi-Fi:

"Philadelphia... announced a plan to build the biggest municipal wireless Internet system in the nation, the latest of a growing number of cities to treat high-speed Web access as a basic municipal service like water, electricity and trash collection."

Philly's service isn't 'free', but Google's offer to San Francisco is. San Fran is being given a choice between slow-and-free and fast-but-commercial. The latter option is being offered by Comcast, the cable provider. Comcast insists the public prefers to pay for faster connections. What they're not saying, of course, is that if the city chooses Google's free service, Comcast is, well, screwed.

There's a similar conflict in Philly, where the city would finance the construction of EarthLink's relatively inexpensive ($15/month) Wi-Fi system. In this case, it's Verizon shouting 'no-fair', because the municipality is subsidizing a competitor.

A few dozen municipalities are building full-blown Wi-Fi systems under one scheme or another. You can bet that with such intense competition, and corporate fortunes at stake, a lot of money is changing hands under the table between various service providers and city fathers.

In our opinion, San Fran should serve the greater good by offering the free Google service. If the public then demands faster service, as Comcast contends it will, those who wish to pay can do so. This way there is insured competition between free/slow and fast/paid. Other cities looking at Wi-Fi should do the same. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with the same old cable monopoly we've struggled with for decades.

{UPDATE: eWeek says that Earthlink has been selected to build Philly's system - and will bear all constructions costs. Users will pay $20/month.}
Categories: Wi-Fi+newtorks