A Stitch in Haste

In previous posts I have expressed my opposition to municipally-provided wi-fi access, for the simple reason that Internet access is neither a public good (it is perfectly excludable) nor a natural monopoly (competition can and does exist).

The issue first gained notoriety in Philadelphia. Here are two quick updates from other cities:

ITEM: Chicago is racing against the legislative clock to pass a wi-fi authorization before the state bans the practice altogether --

Chicago Alderman Edward Burke has gone into bureaucratic overdrive, hoping to craft legislation that will guarantee the city's right to run its own Wi-Fi service. Speed is key in this situation because the Illinois General Assembly will soon consider a ban on city-funded broadband networks. Chicago officials see a citywide wireless network as a potential revenue source, a way to bridge the digital divide and a means of attracting tourists. State officials, meanwhile, appear intent on making sure service providers can control wireless networks.

MY TAKE: It's loopy enough to try to argue that the poor shouldn't have to pay for wireless Internet access (should they have to pay for laptops?). It's another outrage altogether to suggest that a city should be allowed to usurp a business in a brazen money grab. Since when are local governments allowed to compete in a purely private industry for no other reason than "there's gold in them thar hills!"? It used to be that government provided certain goods and services precisely because they could not be provided profitably. How far we've fallen.

ITEM: A similar tussle may be occurring twixt Houston and Texas --

Will Reed envisions a mouse in every house -- computers, that is -- and high-speed Internet connections for all. A wired community, he says, is an empowered one.
...
Reed's organization, Technology for All, has pioneered this program to bridge the digital divide with help from Rice University and an enthusiastic Mayor Bill White, who has asked city libraries to join the effort. This small, wired neighborhood may eventually become a model for providing everyone in the city free, or low-cost, Internet access. Or not.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, has filed a massive telecommunications bill in Austin this session that, in part, bans Texas cities from participating in wireless information networks.
...
SBC Communications, which has more DSL customers in the nation than any other provider, said cities should be allowed to offer wireless Internet access in public places, such as parks and libraries. But they should not directly compete with private enterprises by providing services to residents and businesses, said company spokesman Gene Acuña.

MY TAKE: Again, here we have a bait-and-switch. If a non-profit organization wants to subsidize -- well, just about anything, including Internet access -- for the poor, then good luck and more power to them. But how does that mesh with a city, funded by taxpayers, giving away what is not only a private good but also really a luxury good and quashing a free market in the process? I also find the claim that allowing cities to build wi-fi networks would actually foster innovation utterly laughable -- does anyone really expect a municipality to exert the same effort to maintaining and upgrading Internet facilities as a telecom company would?

I stick to my guns -- if it's not a public good, then the government has no business providing it.

Related Posts:
Philadelphia's Rocky Wi-Fi Proposal
Philadelphia Persists in Wi-Fi Nonsense
Government-Provided Broadband: Um, Why?
Municipal Wi-Fi Update: Pennsylvania May Block Philly Plan
The Folly of Public Provision of Private Goods