Baltimore’s wireless hotzone project, which I wrote about in October 2003, is being delayed, according to MSNBC, but the article is vague about the reasons. I got the impression that the city encountered a lot of opposition from local businesses trying to make a buck out of charging for Wi-Fi service. These businesses consider the city to be a competitor Baltimore’s wireless hotzone project, which I wrote about in October 2003, is being delayed, according to MSNBC, but the article is vague about the reasons. I got the impression that the city encountered a lot of opposition from local businesses trying to make a buck out of charging for Wi-Fi service. These businesses consider the city to be a competitor and criticize it for not working together with local enterpreneurs.
It’s a shame to see projects like Baltimore’s grind to a halt because of local infighting. Seattle Times writer Paul Andrew makes a plea for greater coordination between city councils, local enterpreneurs and community wireless groups:
As Wi-Fi gains popularity, it may be time to think about planning issues. Hotspots are sprouting everywhere. But they’re doing so randomly, with little thought given to strategy, coordination and the long term. In some cases they’re interfering with one another, hindering user access. At a time when it would make huge sense for communities to have Internet councils – the same way they have public-works boards, chambers of commerce and zoning authorities – the notion of Wi-Fi planning is almost nonexistent among local jurisdictions. That’s too bad, because the technology is moving ahead on several fronts. Without planning, a lot of time and money stand to be wasted, to say nothing of potentially locking localities into a less-efficient or costlier approach.
Although I understand local business concerns about unfair competition from city governments, I doubt that the problem in Baltimore is the city’s little hotzone. Competition among Wi-Fi access providers is intense, especially where hotspots such as cafes, restaurants and hotels give away access to attract customers. The MSNBC article cites Baltimore-based, Oneder, as a casualty of the ultra-competitive nature of providing access in the area. It also quotes a local businessman who heads up a Wi-Fi startup: by entering into revenue-sharing agreements with local Wi-Fi operators, the city could expand wireless coverage, support its business community and make some money, all at the same time.
I don’t see how revenue-sharing agreements between the city and local Wi-Fi providers is going to stop people from preferring free hotspots over paid-for ones or stop cafe owners from providing free access in exchange for more cups of coffee sold.
What is most alarming about Baltimore’s hotzone project is that the city admitted that they don’t know where they’re going with it. The most successful city initiatives I’ve seen are those that have a clear strategy: either use the hoztone as a pilot for a large city-wide wireless network or use it purely for PR purposes (without expansion plans).
No comments yet.