18 October 2005

US Broadband penetration and municipal networks

I came across this post that brought up municipal networks in light of the declining US standing internationally in broadband service penetration. To that end, Jackson West pointed out the distinction between municipal wireless and citywide wireless coverage in connection with the San Fransisco project. Though he does not elaborate on the subject, the distinction he has in mind appears to be that the former are city provided services while the latter are privately provided services throughout a metropolitan area (apparently the model that San Fransisco and Philadelphia are following).

How aggressive should localities be about pushing this kind of service? Should they be providing resources (such as financing, rights of way) for free? Is it appropriate for cities to be biased towards wireless (as they appear to be)? Would you anticipate regulatory favoritism on the part of a city toward its own initiative (whether municipal or not)?

Technorati Tag: ,

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I found this in from the P-G today
which suggests that the spread of
mobile telephony has other implications as data.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05291/588999.stm

Martin Weiss said...

This is interesting, thanks for posting it. In areas where traffic density is very low, even anonymity as promised by Missouri would be of much help. A reasonable observer would be able to deduce who is going somewhere if there are only a few residences on a street ...

On the other hand one could make the case that this is not an unreasonable privacy loss for a public good (basically, echoing Scott McNealy -CEO of Sun- who said something like "You have no privacy anymore. Get over it"). Furthermore, users can always turn their phone off, which would prevent them from being tracked ...