Why Wi-Fi?

by on August 21, 2007 · 8 comments

David Robinson at The American said my last blog post on Wi-Fi was intriguing and asked me to write a piece for him. I can’t turn down a request for writing, so here it is. The piece is about the recent failure of the San Francisco Wi-Fi plan with Google and Earthlink. I also advance the argument that a public/private partnership to create Wi-Fi is a generally bad idea–the regulation that comes with Muni-Wi threatens to turn providers into utilities.

SHARE: 8 comments

About Cord Blomquist

Cord Blomquist spends most of his time pining for the singularity. To pass the time while waiting for this convergence, he serves as the New Media Manager at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Before landing this sweet gig, Cord hocked policy writing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, toiled in the halls of Congress, and even worked in a crouton factory. In college, Cord spent his hours studying political philosophy and artificial intelligence, resulting in an unhealthy obsession with Lt. Commander Data. All of these activities will, of course, be viewed as laughable when he is ported from this crude meatspace into the nanobot cloud.

Read more articles by Cord Blomquist.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Cord,

    Great article. However, a nitpick:

    Companies that enter into public-private partnerships enjoy favorable treatment. Special access to city or county rights of way, shelter from liability, and the backing of a public partner with the power to tax makes Wi-Fi firms that enter into municipal deals formidable foes. Potential competitors may find these advantages too much to overcome, thus driving them out of the marketplace. With potential competitive rivals driven out, we are soon left with an ossifying public utility disguised as a private enterprise.

    Doesn’t this describe the current relationship between cities and the Baby Bells and cable companies? They benefit from a great number of special privileges, subsidies, and anti-competitive regulatory schemes. While the first-best solution would obviously be to repeal all of those privilege in order to create a truly level playing field, it’s not clear to me that muni WiFi couldn’t be a step in the right direction, depending on how it’s set up. Obviously, if we’re talking about a government-run or government-subsidized system, that’s a bad idea. But if we’re just talking about giving a third company the same sorts of right-of-way privileges that the cable and DSL companies currently enjoy, I don’t see why we should rule that out.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Cord,

    Great article. However, a nitpick:

    Companies that enter into public-private partnerships enjoy favorable treatment. Special access to city or county rights of way, shelter from liability, and the backing of a public partner with the power to tax makes Wi-Fi firms that enter into municipal deals formidable foes. Potential competitors may find these advantages too much to overcome, thus driving them out of the marketplace. With potential competitive rivals driven out, we are soon left with an ossifying public utility disguised as a private enterprise.



    Doesn’t this describe the current relationship between cities and the Baby Bells and cable companies? They benefit from a great number of special privileges, subsidies, and anti-competitive regulatory schemes. While the first-best solution would obviously be to repeal all of those privilege in order to create a truly level playing field, it’s not clear to me that muni WiFi couldn’t be a step in the right direction, depending on how it’s set up. Obviously, if we’re talking about a government-run or government-subsidized system, that’s a bad idea. But if we’re just talking about giving a third company the same sorts of right-of-way privileges that the cable and DSL companies currently enjoy, I don’t see why we should rule that out.

  • Eric Hanneken

    Tim, you’re right about the Baby Bells and cable companies, but establishing yet more government-protected incumbents, each jealous of its privileges, is hardly a second-best solution. It would be better to leave things as they are.

  • Eric Hanneken

    Tim, you’re right about the Baby Bells and cable companies, but establishing yet more government-protected incumbents, each jealous of its privileges, is hardly a second-best solution. It would be better to leave things as they are.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    However, their is a difference:

    Wi-Fi, as a public service, is much more content neutral–it looks more like infrastructure, much more like the Baby Bells.

    The cable companies look much less like infrastructure, though.

    I am less concerned with a municipal Wi-Fi service than I would be if they started running a TV station.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    However, their is a difference:

    Wi-Fi, as a public service, is much more content neutral–it looks more like infrastructure, much more like the Baby Bells.

    The cable companies look much less like infrastructure, though.

    I am less concerned with a municipal Wi-Fi service than I would be if they started running a TV station.

  • http://openmarket.org Cord Blomquist

    Tim, I agree that the incumbent ISPs enjoy the same privileges as municipal Wi-Fi does or will enjoy in many cities. However, I don’t think the solution is to introduce more special privileged players into the system. This introduces one more competitor, but I’d rather see real reform that would introduce many more competitors, not a deeply flawed Wi-Fi service.

  • http://openmarket.org Cord Blomquist

    Tim, I agree that the incumbent ISPs enjoy the same privileges as municipal Wi-Fi does or will enjoy in many cities. However, I don’t think the solution is to introduce more special privileged players into the system. This introduces one more competitor, but I’d rather see real reform that would introduce many more competitors, not a deeply flawed Wi-Fi service.

Previous post:

Next post: