31 replies to this topic

[Sam Stone]

There's a bill before the Senate that would make it illegal for Texas cities to provide Wi-Fi to residents. Check out this article for details:
http://www.dfw.com/m...re/11314733.htm

The poll question is not whether Texas cities should be allowed to provide Wi-Fi (perhaps that's poll-worthy, too), but whether Ft. Worth should get into the act.

Personally, I think this bill is nonsense. This pol from Weatherford is probably in the pocket of the telecom industry. Wi-Fi has the potential to be an excellent economic development tool. Fort Worth could really take advantage of its locational advantages, namely density. It's a whole lot easier to provide Wi-Fi in areas like downtown, cultural district, and stockyards than it is in sprawled out cities like Colleyville, Hurst, Mansfield, etc. Also, there seems to be plenty of opportunity for the private sector to get involved. The city could contract service from a private vendor. A Wi-Fi cloud over downtown would make the area even more attractive, would be a legitimate and appropriate use of TIF funds, and would be great for convention-goers.

If this stupid bill passes, we'd have a year to do it. Yet another thing that should be a campaign issue.

[WTx]

Addison is going to make the entire city a hot spot. In the article I read talking about Addisons efforts an industry spokesperson pretty much hated the idea. Yeah, this bill has lobbyist written all over it.

[SouthSideAllan2000]

I think Fort Worth Should build it(in part), and the local phone co should maintain it. It would be of great benefit to SBC because this would provide broadband services that they currently aren't able to provide such as VoIP, it would help them compete with Charter. Also, I heard SBC wants to get into the entertainment provider business(like Charter and the 'Dish'es) through high-speed networks so this would give them a way to get a network for free! Imagine, phone, internet, television all through the same wireless network. As for free or cheap net for the masses well that can be done this way. $19.99-$14.99 a month for internet and if your low income you would get free access. Phone service would stay the same or VoIP with free basic landline for emergency services and things like alarm systems that require a landline that's something that Charter could not provide. I think it's something that can be done and something that the state should stay out of. That bill is big business against us little guys. Shame on Phil King!

[Sam Stone]

I’ve not read the bill, doubt if I’ll have the time nor the desire, but I think this is a very complex issue… far to complex for city governments. Personally I think Wi-Fi should be a basic utility as long as we’re just talking 802.11x, would be nice if it was somehow attached to electricity. The big worry is that the government should not be competing with the private sector, which sounds reasonable to me, how to solve that issue I’ve not a clue but if the government can provide a better product than a public company…

If this just refers to 802.11x I think it’s too little too late. I think the future is in 802.16 - Wi-Max which will hit markets 3rd quarter, and 802.21 - inter network handoffs, anyway, as long as they keep their hands off emerging technologies I’ll be happy. Once it becomes a public mainstay most of us will be onto something better anyway.

I think there's a way to do it without the city competing with the private sector. If the city were to set up a wifi netowrk downtown for instance, they could get a provider (like SBC), give them franchise rights, they wire up all the antennas, set up the hardware, and operate the system. SBC charges the city the up-front capital costs plus charges based on usage. The city is not competing, it is a customer. From there, the city can give it out for free (not really free, we still pay for it out of taxes) or charge user fees for it. Either way, the private sector is happy.

[safly]

I whole heartedly agree with this proposal to Wi-Fi Texas. It is an attractive tool for West Coast cities to enhance and attract tech savvy individuals and companies. Tech TV did a report about 4 years ago on how much of the PCH 1 coastline is "hotspot" and they came back with an 80% figure, astonishing. That's alot of square miles folks!

This may sound a bit ridiculous to you forum folks but I considered running for the city mayoral position back in '02, and yes I had a swell of support from downtown business owners, residents and patrons alike. In my vision I proposed that FW should step up and Wi-Fi this town for reasons expressed by another post, in that convention goers and business customers would absolutely take advantage of and utilize this tool to the fullest. All while letting others know about this mid size town in the metroplex which provides it, paid for by an assortment of tax dollars. It seemed far fetched at the time by many of residence, but for people in the know such as my Moto contacts really envisioned a different downtown brought about by this possibility.

[Urbndwlr]

I voted that the city should not. I would rather allow DTFWI or some other entity that has a more narrow focus provide it if it is a non-commercial entity. I would certainly use it regularly.

[safly]

I voted that the city should not.  I would rather allow DTFWI or some other entity that has a more narrow focus provide it if it is a non-commercial entity.  I would certainly use it regularly.

I think it would be in the best interest for the city to back it.

Forgive me if I ramble, I am trying to type and listen to my new Cuban Music CD. Probably too late for this kind of jam.

The city should vote on funding the cost for infrastructure and use, since I believe most of downtown workers are assoc. with the county and municipal gov't. They need Wi-Fi for effortless and cheap effective communication. Of course it should be offered to the participating public, that will most certainly set ourselves apart from THE REST.

AWESOME Machito JAM!

with that in mind, FW can always set-up procedures for allowing a low comm'l contract bidder to make it a reality. Irregardless it has to happen.

[Sam Stone]

Urbndwlr,
DFWI manages the TIF district for the city, so if they did it, it would still be the city's money.

[safly]

The risk of such possibilities should be assumed by people who have willingly invested in a risky enterprise - not by taxpayers.

Who are you kidding? I can name numerous examples were taxpayers money have ALREADY been used to invest in even MORE of a risky enterprise, one such example is RE development. I do not mind the city of FW offering an avenue or oppt. for Wi-Fi access FREE of CHARGE to downtown traffic. Now if T-Mobile wants to jump in the game and offer a BETTER alternative such as 802.16 then so be it. But the oppt. to have access is undeniably a must have for the city and by the city. It would certainly be a feature that the city of FW can add their stamp of approval on and try to lure visitors and business travellers alike to this wonderful piece of the Metroplex. I believe the city already has the man power and savvy to pull this small feat off. If they don't , then how expensive would it be to contract it out?

Bottomline, the city could and should offer 802.11 Wi-Fi (which I don't see becoming obsolete for quite a while), and let the Corps. handle competition with faster more reliable technology. We can always go for the bigger and best technology and sell the provider sponsoring rights to other non Telecom Co's from all over the Metroplex or even NASDAQ. Thus attracting the HIGHEST bidders for naming rights and then Mo money, Mo money, Mo money.

I can't see T-Mobile, Sprint, SBC or Verizon teaming up with or selling their HIGH DOLLAR provider sponsor naming rights to CBS, Nike, NM or AA. Can you?

[360texas]

I guess you are referring to the new 802. N flavor. I read an article that said WiFi logo would not be used on any wireless device until it was backwards compatable with 11a, b, g. The ISO committee is forcing the compatibility issues on the manufacturers. Which makes sense.

Wifi is a utility like water, gas and telephone. I voted yes.

If you are looking at commercial users signing up for Wifi, nearly ALL the hotels, motels, coffee shops are using Wifi (broadband) and offering it free for anyone (hopefully customers) that steps into their lobby.

The City buys Gas, Water, Telephone (broadband) and Electricity as a customer, whats so different about Wifi ? Its just another utility like City operated water plants and Grey water plants.

Dave

[360texas]

Yes you are correct in regards to most of your replies. You were talking about spending while downtown. How about being able to pay your parking meter/lot using wifi. Or paying for a evening dinner out using wifi device. I think that is where all this is going.

We already use our 1 and only credit card to purchase goods. We have direct internet billing for services like the water bill, electric bill, cell phone, hardwire wire telephone and that 1 credit card is paid directly from our bank account.

Using your wifi device to generally purchase consumer goods and services probably is the next step.

Our envelopes and 37 cent stamps will probably remain in the top right desk drawer..... unused. Wireless and internet have essentially replaced the payment method and probably the government supported post office.

[Sam Stone]

What I was thinking, and I guess I didn't explain it well, was this: Downtown's public places should have Wi-Fi. That's streets, parking lots (where there are often concerts), parks, convention center, library, and public buildings. I wasn't envisioning city supplied Wi-Fi for every living soul working or living downtown. Wi-Fi in the public places would be yet another urban amenity that would make downtown an attractive place to come and hang out, not to mention attract development. You would know that you could sit at a table on any patio and have an internet connection. The reason I think it needed to be city run was that Sundance doesn't reach into the south end of downtown and there is a TIF in place that is a perfect funding mechanism for this sort of thing.

I wish I knew more about the emerging technologes and the costs associated with them, but surely they are miniscule compared to big utilities like water, sewer, elec, and gas for the application I am thinking of.

[360texas]

What we are talking about is inter connecting sending/receiving boxes across town at certain intervals.

These send/receive boxes are called 'Access Points' and slower 812.11b (ISO standard for transmission speed) boxes "On a good day" have a range of about 100 feet. So when you walk into the access point range, your hand held computer will sense the access point signal, and if your hand held device to recognize the access point signal you will have access to the internet. I have 1 access point connected to our local area network and use my notebook out in the back yard.

The newer N access points you see advertized in Best Buy, CompUSA or Frey's sunday news paper ads have significantly faster speed and approach broadband speeds like aDSL.

At night with my PDA and Wifi network card... we can watch all our neighbors wireless access points show up and disconnect as we walk around the block. All we are doing is walking through their broadcast areas. Hopefully ALL our neighbors have their Access Point security turned on. Otherwise I could go through their AP and surf the web.

Their access point is hardwired to their telephone line. Where ever there is a phone jack there could be an access point box. Older and slower access point boxes cost less than $50. Newer /faster ones are around $100.

I have 1 aDSL account with SBC and pay a flat monthly rate no matter how many computers are using the 384kbps (kilobytes per second). I have had as many as 5 computers using it at one time to access the internet. When traffic gets heavy (every one hits the return key at the same time, the 384kbps loads up with traffic and everyones machine response time is slower. Its like a water pipe, just so much traffic or computer packet content volume can go down the tube. After awhile you need a bigger pipe.... or like moving up from 384 to 512kbps or more.

Hope this helps

Dave

[safly]

You were talking about spending while downtown. How about being able to pay your parking meter/lot using wifi. Or paying for a evening dinner out using wifi device. I think that is where all this is going.

How about paying for a cabbie ride, w/o using that obnoxious little carbon paper. I have offered that to numerous taxis in the area, they seem to favor that, especially with the $$$ price of cell-technology CC machines. You could also use it to pay for your monthly parking bill, on a rewards card, and not by check any more. You could pay your parking or moving violation ticket, on the spot, and eliminate much wasteful paper work, tax dollar robbing court time, etc. etc. Another great idea is to use the DSL bandwith for checking out a Symphony program via the net, paying a small nominal fee of course (electronic media royalties?). The possibilites are endless 360!

BTW, does anyone who resides in a downtown apt. or condo want their HOA or rent fees payed by your rewarding CC(Credit Cards)? Let me know and I can set it up for your place with my company. Working on a system for LP residents, wish me luck.

[360texas]

There is a large use for WiFi. The infrastructure needs to be expanded. Wifi usage will expand accordingly.

Its sort of like electric power lines, telephone, dial up and aDSL communications, water and gas supply lines. Most all supply lines were/ still are regulated AND heavily taxed by city, state and federal government. Where does all that tax revenue go to anyway? Thats another thread.

[360texas]

From iternetnews.com http://www.internetn...cle.php/3509961

I found this article:

June 3, 2005
Legislation Aims to Stop Muni Wi-Fi
By Roy Mark


U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wants to take state and local governments out of the broadband business. It's for their own good, the former Southwestern Bell executive said.

Under the terms of the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act (H.R. 2726) introduced by Sessions, state and local governments would be prohibited from offering telecommunications, telecommunications services, information services or cable service in any geographic area in which a private entity is already offering a substantially similar service.

Governments already offering telecom services would be grandfathered under Sessions' legislation. The bill also provides that in markets where private entities fail to offer service, municipal governments would be permitted to build networks and offer service.

"Rather than investing in vital public works projects, some local and state governments are investing their limited funds into telecommunications projects and putting taxpayer dollars at risk," the five-term congressman from Dallas said in a statement. "By choosing to invest their limited resources in telecommunications infrastructures, municipal governments often duplicate services already provided by a private entity."

Gina Vaughn, Sessions' communications director, told internetnews.com in an e-mail response, "We believe ... that under normal circumstances private providers are the ones with resources at their disposal to make the upgrades that come with continually evolving technology."

She added, "Municipal governments, with the many public works demands they face, are not in an ideal situation to be pouring money into continued telecom infrastructure updates."

Over the last several years, numerous cities, most notably Philadelphia, have considered launching their own wireless networks in direct competition with local providers. Republicans in particular are opposed to cities competing with private enterprise.

Earlier this week, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law similar to Sessions' national proposal prohibiting Florida cities from offering broadband if competitive services already exist.

Pennsylvania pushed through laws in December restricting municipal-backed broadband services, with Philadelphia receiving an exemption from the new law. The city plans to sell its wireless broadband service to homes and businesses, while providing free access in public spaces.

"My goal in introducing this legislation is to discourage municipal governments from wasting taxpayer funds on building duplicative infrastructure, while at the same time encouraging private companies to offer continually innovating service in underserved areas by removing the specter of government competition," Sessions said.

Before winning election to Congress, Sessions spent more than 16 years at the Bell Labs in New Jersey, and served as a Southwestern Bell district manager for marketing in Dallas.

[safly]

#*%& Sessions. He's another punk politician who can't even pin a tail on an elephant if it was sitiin on his face. Then Jeb! Get the heck out of here, fix education, fix health care, the voting process, and stand up and speak on those topics Americans really care about.

I'll vote for a 1/2 percent sales tax increase for unlimited broadband offered by my local gov. Heck yah.

SBC, shakin in their boots, offerin $15/month quotes.

Save the Jackalope, darnit!

The bill also provides that in markets where private entities fail to offer service, municipal governments would be permitted to build networks and offer service.

That's a FREAKIN JOKE. Who cares if the local gov't of Lake Caddo is given the nod to decisde their broadband expansions. Especially, when the top 25 cities are allowing the likes of SBC to make a killin, I mean livin, off of their res.

"Rather than investing in vital public works projects, some local and state governments are investing their limited funds into telecommunications projects and putting taxpayer dollars at risk," the five-term congressman from Dallas said in a statement. "By choosing to invest their limited resources in telecommunications infrastructures, municipal governments often duplicate services already provided by a private entity."

often duplicate services already provided by a private entity...

..in markets worth offering broadband services.

I can't take it anymore! InveSTING in VITAL Public works? Do you REALLY think that a majority repub. house is going to support that notion? Have they ever been known in the history of their party to SUPPORT VITAL PUBLIC WoRKS? 20/20 Give me break ! Let me guess, give us the responsibility to locally fund our homeland security offenses. It should be federally funded!

Geeh, I wonder why municipalities have these "limited" resources? Hmmmm.

What ever happened to seperation of powers and stateism and federalism. Since when has Mr.Sessions been the voice for the city of Fort Worth? Why even bother with a municipality gov't, or city council. Sounds good to me.

Common business SENSE. Would you rather pay $400 a year for broadband services, or .10% added in sales tax for it? $400/year, or $100 at most (for some people). Especially now that you can deduct your sales tax burden federally! Sounds LIKE A WINNER to me.

[360texas]

The Federal deduction of Texas State Sales tax was only for 2004 and is for 2005.

[safly]

That really has little to do w/ my salespitch. Just a cosmetic addition. But the faster we get it enacted, the quicker we could use it. Hope the sales tax deduction rebounds our way again. One more step closer to Texas Independence.


VIVA REPUBLICA!

[360texas]

oK.. OK.. I understand your view point. Getting a sales tax deduction on your Federal is not cosmetic. Its BIG BUCKS.

As I understand the issue.. all the City of Fort Worth has to do is "declare before a certain date" that they are going to build an WiFi infrastructure and they will be grand fathered into the bill.

Dave

[safly]

It's an election season, and HOPEFULLY some politicians will be reminded of this venture. For me, it is a wonderful excuse to add 5 or 10 basis points to our FW city sales tax. Saves me money and creates civil jobs, or gaurantees work done to the lowest bidder. With oversight of course.

Yes, sales tax deduction can mean BIG BUCKS for some. Great work for CPA's too.

Political bantering aside, R U with me?

[Thurman52]

Free Dowtown WiFi in Orlando fails

http://www.local6.co...893/detail.html

[safly]

Heard AM news AM radio last Saturday that the cities of SA and Austin were goin Wi-Fi, possibly with Verizon. Should be interesting.

[360texas]

Heard on this morning's newscast that New Orleans will have CITY WIDE WI-FI available FREE for holiday tourist visitors. I guess that means everyone in downtown New Orleans.

Dave

[Dismuke]

UPDATE 3-S.F. mayor sees wireless service as basic right
Tue Oct 4, 2005 12:51 AM ET
(Recasts, adds analyst comments, details)
By Eric Auchard

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 3 (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

What a typical socialist.

Wireless Internet access is a fundamental right? A right - provided for by whom? And what if those who are supposed to do the providing do not wish to do so - what about their rights?

The only language socialists understand is "might makes right" - and that is the exact opposite of any rational meaning of the concept "rights."

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

"Access" to information is not something that can be pulled out of thin air. Someone has to provide the means to that access - and the existence of such a someone is what socialists such as this backward twerp systematically evade. If that access is to be provided by a wireless Internet connection - someone had to invent the technology that made it possible. Someone (or many someones) had to put up the investment capital to promote that technology and put it into production before thugs such as Newsom could have been aware of its existence. And for that technology to be made available across a city, someone has to pay for the necessary equipment and the labor needed to install and keep it operational. Do these "someones" have rights? Not according to Mr. Newsom. According to his worldview, only governmental looters and their recipients have rights.

An alleged "right" to seize the productivity or effort of others is a contradiction in terms.

Making wireless access affordable to the entire population of San Francisco was a vital step to differentiating the city in order to make it more economically competitive on a state, national and global level, Newsom said.

After 100 years of economic wreckage and, in some cases, rivers of blood, it is amazing how many people are still out there who believe that their particular gang will somehow be the first to magically make socialism work.

But the mayor also singled out the power of Wi-Fi as an alternative network to provide emergency information to all citizens in the event a natural disaster such as an earthquake were to strike the city and knock out other communications.

It will serve as an alternative to what network once all competitive networks have gone out of business or left the market because they are unable to compete against a competitor that everyone (including all competitors) is forced to subsidize?

Have you ever noticed the death toll in earthquakes and other natural disasters in countries with socialist economies as compared to similar events of equal magnitude in countries such as the United States and others which have semi-free economies?

The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.

Of course he has no exact figures on how much it would cost to provide what he claims is a "right." Socialists never do. After all, they are not the ones who have to pay for it.

How many individuals or organizations who only have access to their money or money that others (i.e. investors or donors) provide to them on a voluntary basis announce that they will embark on a large scale project with nothing more than a "general estimate" of what it will cost them? But if you are a socialist politician, why bother with anything more than some fuzzy and, most likely, arbitrary estimate? After all, if the money runs out, all you have to do is send out the tax collectors to loot some more.

"My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.

Oh, really? If the government is going to declare it to be a "right" and nobody is willing to provide it on a voluntary basis, who the heck IS going to pay for it? The tooth fairy?

Analysts said that while municipal wireless services could undercut purely commercial services, competition between phone and cable companies is increasingly focused on signing up customers for bundled deals in which customers must pay for telephone, Internet and television services as one package.

And does one really think there will continue to be demand for such bundles if the government is already providing one of the main components of the bundle? Ever since I got a cell phone, the only reason I still have my stupid LAN line (which I almost never use and the only incoming calls it receives are from telemarketers) is because I enjoy my dsl service. If it weren't for the dsl, I would call and cancel the thing tomorrow. And how many people out there who subscribe to cable tv would switch to satellite the very instant they no longer needed their cable internet? Of course, I am pointing out facts and logic - something that emotion driven socialists are impervious to.

One company, which Vein declined to name, has proposed an advertising-supported plan for free wireless access, he said. That company appeared to be Google. A Google spokesman on Friday had confirmed that its Wi-Fi access proposal could be funded through online advertising.

If a private organization such as Google wishes to provide such a service for free using its own voluntarily obtained capital, I don't have a problem with it at all - I might even consider using it if it is available where I live. And if a city government wishes to make the tops of its street lights and street signs available for such an endeavor, I don't have a problem with that either, so long as the same terms are made to other viable organizations as well. I, like virtually everyone online, take advantage on a daily basis of all sorts of wonderful and beneficial free services provided by Google, Yahoo and others. But these companies do not owe me anything. Unlike uncivilized rabble such as Mr. Newsome, I don't go around asserting that I have some sort of right for others to provide me with such services.

[360texas]

Several cities across the Nation are adopting CityWide WI-FI. Some : starting, in-progress or completed.

Here is the page where I sort of keep up with the WI-Fi news.

http://www.wifinetnews.com/

Dave

[Rohano]

It's my opinion that if Fort Worth adopted a public Wi-Fi network, it could boost a lot of commercial activity. It would probably attract a lot of techno-savvy people to the area (I personally know a lot of people out in the boonies and in Parker County who would probably move into town if there was public wi-fi).
I don't think it's a right, necessarily, for all people to have internet access, but if counties individually provide public networks, it could create huge opportunities.

And if Fort Worth was the first municipality to adopt a wi-fi network in the immediate area, even better.
Let Dallas eat our dust.