Andrew Rasiej who is running for Public Advocate in New York City says that residents can save $480 per year and get faster, better Internet access. Rasiej has issued a report called “Can You Gouge Me Now?” (PDF format) that details NYC’s telco-cableco debacle. He claims that every consumer pays a hidden tax to jack up the profits of Verizon, Andrew Rasiej who is running for Public Advocate in New York City says that residents can save $480 per year and get faster, better Internet access. Rasiej has issued a report called “Can You Gouge Me Now?” (PDF format) that details NYC’s telco-cableco debacle. He claims that every consumer pays a hidden tax to jack up the profits of Verizon, Time Warner and Cablevision‚Äö?Ñ?¨to the tune of $400 million a year. New Yorkers who pay $60 a month for Internet access can have it for far less – $20 per month. He blames the lousy enforcement of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Big Political Money game (large telcos and cable companies lobbying politicians to squelch competition).
For more, read Andrew’s blog post here.
What a load of absolute drivel. Wireless could possibly be part of the future, yes. At this point in time though, wireless does leave a lot to be desired. I’m not sure of too many hotspots that are available while driving across the Van Wyck in NYC, but I’m sure that EVDO will work no problem across there. Until 802.11 or WiMax actually does something useful other than basic hotspots service please don’t publish something like this. Please, don’t run for public advocacy either. I’m sure people don’t want to be burned again as they might have been by the incumbents.
Readers: Before reading into this author’s paper too much. Please check out Orlando and their flop of a WiFi system. Also, I’m not saying that I agree entirely with “information tax” type solutions, but until one understands the technological implications and limitations of current wireless technology, one should keep their mouth closed.
Here’s the article on Orlandos’s WiFi system:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/21/orlando_muni_wifi/
Contrary to the James’s comment, Orlando was not a flop. They hardly deployed anything at all. Check out this article on Muniwireless and read the comments sent by readers who live in Orlando:
http://muniwireless.com/municipal/projects/711
By the way, Orlando has issued an RFP for a citywide Wi-Fi network. Go to this article on Muniwireless:
http://muniwireless.com/municipal/bids/787
Sure EVDO will work except the carriers are charging at lot of money for it and the throughput — who knows? I’ve heard good things and bad things from people who have used the service. Low income families will not be using EVDO any time soon. How does this solve the problem of bringing access to everyone? Note this: in places like Sweden, they pay 20 EUR per month for 10 Mbps (fiber). Wireless broadband is seen by many in the US as the cheapest way to bring free or inexpensive broadband to the largest number of people in the quickest way.
I think it’s really a shame New Yorkers pay so much money for their broadband and that large areas of NYC have NO broadband at all. So much for the excuse that South Korea has lots of broadband because it is densely populated (unlike the US).
I’m not sure I understand how Orlando was not a flop. It failed. It was too expensive for what they wanted to do. I’m really surprised that it only cost $1800/month to run. Just manning a NOC or outsourcing a NOC to monitor the network can be quite expensive.
More comments…
Low income families most likely won’t be using wireless at any time in the near future either. Laptops and computers are still luxury items even though their price has come down.
Also, who paid for the outlay of fiber for bredband? Most likely the railway company that backs them. Is it likely that they have loans to repay? Not sure, if not, that could be a reason why the cost is lower.
Granted, it’s not fair that NYC is taxed more, but wireless is still not all its cracked up to be. It’s true that there are holes in broadband access in many places at this time, but don’t forget that where there are WiFi providers there are still holes in areas where they don’t service.
When it comes down to it, no broadband access is perfect. DSL, cable, wireless all have downfalls, it’s just time that we stop being to proud to admit that.
BTW, please don’t these comments as attacks. There’s a certain sarcastic position that some of us take after being in industry for a handful of years.
I agree with James’ first comment. This so-called “report” is absolute drivel.
Will the people who call this report “drivel” please tell us exactly which bits of the report are inaccurate or false? It does not help to call this drivel without being more specific.
The point that this article is drivel is the fact that the author is looking at this from what seems to be a tainted and poorly directed angle. He’s attempting to pull on the heartstrings of those who cannot get broadband and point all fingers at a monopoly. Basically by publishing this article he says that if he runs for office gets the public advocate chair that he will be able to hand out free or cheap wireless to all.
Someone has to pay for all of that infrastructure just the same way as the incumbents do. I’ve run systems in a multitude of locations but nothing as large and as cumbersome as I can imagine that NYC must be. Just building enough infrastructure to get an entire apartment complex wired is enough.
My point is that this guy makes it sound as though it’s cheap to run a broadband service. Yes, if you do halfa**ed, it is cheap to do. We all know that we can setup a cheap WiFi router and offer wireless to all, but for a company actually looking to run a properly deployed wireless broadband solution is a whole different ballgame.
Setting up and properly operating and maintaining a network is costly. Andrew doesn’t include any of this type of stuff in his report. How much does it cost to build this cheaper solution? Who ends up with the bill? Do the citizens of NYC end up with higher property taxes, do you include the cost into sales tax, do you add additional tariffs elswhere. This all needs to be considered to make this article less one-sided.
James,
I was on a conference call a couple weeks ago with Andrew talking about this. His process is similar to Philadelphia’s. His advocating that NYC leverage it’s public infrastructure [i.e. telephone pole] to set up citywide wireless thru a third party service provider. Under that model, NYC doesn’t incur the cost of operating or maintaining it.
At least that’s my impression…
James, you just don’t get it. OK, I agree that municipal wifi may not be the best solution to this problem, but that part of Rasiej’s paper was but a tiny portion of his screed. Assuming the accuracy of his numbers, the real depth of the problem becomes clear. People in the US are paying way above market value for their broadband. In Tokyo, where folks are used to paying way above market value for just about everything, broadband is $40 a month – for 10Mbps. Who offers consumers 10 or even 5 Mbps in this country? Rasiej’s paper hits the nail on the head when it comes to who benefits and who loses. The proposed solution can only be a means to the eventual outcome. The money that we are spending to keep a monopoly system alive has to be diverted to serving the community. Who would you rather give $40 a month to? Some greasy lobbyist in Washington, or your local library? Nevermind, I probably don’t want to know the answer.