(Sigh) Okay. I just came across this article at Wired.com written by Jennifer Granick, a Stanford University Law School Professor. She is an advocate for municipally funded Wi-Fi access, or as she puts it, "free wireless internet access." She equates this service with public toilets, drinking fountains and park benches. She also states that the only major argument against this is its potential for abuse (i.e. people downloading illegal material, hacking, etc.).
I would like to propose that an even greater argument strikes through the heart of her primary assumption that we are entitled to free Wi-Fi: "nothing in life is free." I find it preposterous that she believes Wi-Fi could be deemed a "need" that our city council members or mayor should have an obligation to provide to their constituents for "free."
Let's take a macroeconomical perspective for a moment and look at a hypothetical procedure for setting up this "free" service. First, the city would need to purchase the infrastructure from the current providers or another wholesaler (roughly in hundreds of millions of dollars). Then they would have to install that infrastructure (wireless servers with enough power to broadcast over the air) and maintain it (a line item in the city budget). I don't know about your own experience, but at my company, our servers occasionally crash and maintenance is constantly being done on them. Finally the true cost to you. Perhaps a few cents added to the city sales tax, or maybe a few dollars onto the property tax, or maybe just an overt "Wi-Fi" tax on your next tax return. Any way you slice it, you're going to pay. And what I find even more outrageous is that not everybody has Wi-Fi; I sure don't and I don't want to pay for someone else to have it.
This isn't a need. It's a want and a frivolous one at that. In the cities considering these proposals, you already have service providers, sometimes more than one (which is a good thing if you believe in competitive capitalism). In Iowa City, you can go to a local coffee shop or Panera Bread Company. They provide the service for free because they know it will lure customers who will in turn buy products to help subsidize that "free" service. This, in my opinion is the route to go. If there is a demand, a private company will provide. Obviously in Ms. Granick's hometown, there is a demand because there are two companies offering the service that the city wants to grab.
Sure, some municipal power companies charge less than the going rate, some municipal telephone companies have great service, but people are always paying for it in the end and why take a gamble? These companies don't necessarily innovate and bring out new products (Plus, water, power, sewage, garbage disposal and the such are needs of a city). The private sector is usually the driving force behind innovation. All those revenues and profits they're making is the motivating factor to better their products, make them cheaper, and expand their service. When was the last time a municipal utility came out with a revolutionary breakthrough in the way they do business?
Ms. Granick looks to the government to solve her problems and make her life better. I look to myself and those with a track record for success.
No comments:
Post a Comment