Years ago, we imagined the construction of citywide Wi-Fi in major cities across the country. The idea was that everyone would be able to log on from anywhere -- the park, the bus, even apartments and houses in poorer neighborhoods. That dream is quickly fading as it becomes clear that building costly wireless network infrastructure where nobody uses it is a lousy idea.
Private companies who provide Wi-Fi hotspots tend to do so in locations that maximize "bang for the buck" -- airports, coffee houses and other places where existing Wi-Fi users with money tend to congregate. These companies have zero motivation to build hotspots in low-income housing complexes and other places where costs are high and customer revenue is low.
The trouble with this state of affairs is that the poor are left out. Internet access is a resource with the potential to enhance educational and job opportunities, and the poor shouldn't be priced out of these opportunities.
So to score political points, cities like Houston plan to build Wi-Fi zones in poor areas. If the goal is to help get the mayor re-elected, free Wi-Fi might succeed. But if the goal is to get poor people to use Wi-Fi, the plan will fail. Here's why.
|Mike Elgan and More|
Is It Time to Globalize Time?
Inside the Shady World of Spy Gadgets
The Kindle: Saving Your Eyes, Wallet, and the Environment
The Best Free Service You've Never Used
The Trouble with Free Wi-Fi
The Wi-Fi industry is still in its infancy, and the best combination of technologies and revenue generation will be decided over the next ten years. In the airports and coffee houses, various infrastructure and service companies are slugging it out for dominance, and ultimately customers will decide which is the magic combination as they reward better service and lower cost with more business.
Meanwhile, in cities like Houston, the poor are getting shafted. The government there will pick some solution for everybody based on some unknown criteria. Private companies are given yet another incentive to stay clear from these poor neighborhoods. A private company would have to compete with a similar service that's being given away by the city.
Also: By locking the poor into a single provider, they put those customers at risk. Companies that provide Wi-Fi can fail, or back out of the deal. Houston itself is getting the $3.5 million from Earthlink as a result of that company backing out of a plan to provide city Wi-Fi. Municipal Wi-Fi schemes are being cancelled all over America for a wide variety of reasons, but mainly because the costs dont justify the benefits. If some single mother in a housing project uses the city's free Wi-Fi to start a small home business, and comes to rely on it, the broadband spigot could be shut off with no alternative available for months
Although Wi-Fi uptake is low in poor areas, cell phone usage is relatively high. As we enter the Golden Age of Mobile Broadband, cell phone companies might be incented to provide wireless data service at low cost, which would let those customers hook up their laptops and even PCs to the mobile broadband connection. But free Wi-Fi provided by the city kills the incentive to work on such mobile broadband services, so the cell carriers wont even think about it.