A Stitch in Haste

So first it was municipal luxury golf courses in Chicago.

Now it's public high-speed internet access in Philadelphia:

For about $10 million, city officials believe they can turn all 135 square miles of Philadelphia into the world's largest wireless Internet hot spot.

The ambitious plan, now in the works, would involve placing hundreds, or maybe thousands of small transmitters around the city — probably atop lampposts. Each would be capable of communicating with the wireless networking cards that now come standard with many computers.
...
And the city would likely offer the service either for free, or at costs far lower than the $35 to $60 a month charged by commercial providers, said the city's chief information officer, Dianah Neff.
...
"We like to say it should be like the air you breathe — free and available everywhere," Gonick said. "We look at this like PBS or NPR. It should be a public resource."

You know you're in trouble when PBS and NPR are cited as "model programs."

Now of course, if I were a -- gasp! -- liberal, my first instinct would be something like "there are much more serious needs right now than subsidized high-speed wireless internet access. It's nothing more than a boondoggle for the rich. We should be worried about starving kids, failing schools, HIV among the poor, fewer cops, Wal-Mart..." and whatever else municipal-level liberals are incensed about these days...

Besides the fact that wireless access is not a public good -- therefore there is no rational basis for the government offering it -- how long do you think it would be before liberals demand, for example, that the government provide free laptops to everyone, or fight tooth-and-nail against every fee increase? (Think "subway fares"...)

And are private telecommunications companies' wi-fi systems supposed to just roll over and die? Who's going to compensate them for their capital expenditures to date -- or will the city just invoke eminent domain and confiscate them?

Obviously, wi-fi is not a static technology (it's brand new!) -- how trustworthy would a municipality be in upgrading its infrastructure and expanding its range of services over time? Most cities can't even put together a decent website...now they want to be ISPs?

"Competition" (such as it is) has served cities adequately if not optimally in cable TV, long distance services, dial-up access and wireless telephony. Why start nationalizing (municipalizing?) a nascent and rapidly-evolving industry right out of the nest?

If you have to do something "liberal" regarding getting wi-fi to the poor (I don't see why you do), then try some form of voucher system.

Hat tip to Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE: Apparently this terrible idea is spreading -- PolicyGuy has a laundry list of locales planning publicly-provided wi-fi.

ADDENDUM: I have a major update post here.

The New York Times provides an opportunity to update my previous post on Philadelphia's proposal to provide free Wi-Fi Internet access:

8 percent of online consumers said they had tried accessing the Web through wireless connections. About half said they had no need or desire to do so. And because many of Philadelphia's households have no computer - let alone a computer with an Internet connection - the city's numbers would fall far below those figures.
...
Philadelphia would not become a municipal Internet company. "This won't be government-run," she said. Among other options, the city could pass the project to a management company, which would build and run the system in exchange for user fees.
...
The wireless initiative would also improve education, [a city official] said, because children would have better access to information, and parents could communicate more effectively with teachers. Because more than 70 percent of the city's students qualify for economic assistance, she said, few families currently can afford to do that.

"The reason we won't just let the market do this is that there are societal needs that aren't inherently part of the capitalist system. We need to be sure no communities in Philadelphia are excluded, whether there's an R.O.I. or not," [the official] said, using the initials for return on investment.

Now, you can't have it both ways. This program must either be the city collecting some revenue from its streetlights, which it would rent out to private firms that would provide the Wi-Fi access (an okay idea), or it's the city disrupting the "capitalist system" because some poor kids (who probably don't have computers anyway) can somehow benefit from free or subsidized Wi-Fi access (not an okay idea).

So which is it?

Press the advocates of municipal Wi-Fi a little further, and the answer becomes perfectly clear:

[Hermosa Beach city council member] Mr. Keegan said he was not worried that the service might hurt existing Internet providers. "Should I care? I'm not a shareholder," he said. "I'm more concerned about residents, and they love it."

Again, I don't think poor kids with no laptop love it very much.

Finally, as I blog-queried before, how likely is it that a local government will be able to stay on top of a technology evolving as rapidly as wireless Internet access?

City government may be poorly suited to oversee such things as network security and customer service, he said. And with the advent of new wireless technologies like the Wi-Max standard, in which transmitters could send signals 30 miles instead of 300 feet, the city risks adopting a system destined for obsolescence.

There is way too much overthinking going on here. Wireless internet access is not a public good (it's perfectly excludable). There is therefore no justification whatsoever for it to be publicly provided. Those concerned about wireless Internet access for the poor (besides having severe priority issues) should consider vouchers or a comparable program.

It's interesting that the arguments for municipal Wi-Fi seem analogous to rural electrification during the New Deal. I would respond more fully, but that would take a whole other major blog post. Short answer: "Electricity = Wi-Fi?" I don't think so. That would be like saying "Indoor toilets = marble hot tubs." (Note also the continued existence, in the Twenty-First Century!, of possibly the most pernicious boondoggle in American history, the Tennessee Valley Authority.)

Hat tip to Glittering Eye.

UPDATE #1: Dave Schuler of Glittering Eye quite rightly observes that I misread his post -- he was referring to the initial electrification of the country under Thomas Edison et al, not rural electrification via government subsidization programs such as the TVA. I have Orwelled the post accordingly.

UPDATE #2: Technology Liberation Front has similar thoughts.

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

Yet another city is planning to offer “free” (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) municipal wi-fi Internet access:

True to its spirit of innovation, the City of Dayton [Ohio] is moving forward with creating a wireless environment that would allow residents and visitors in open spaces within the city limits to access the Internet from their portable computers and related devices at no cost. ... “Our public/private partnership with HarborLink [the wi-fi service provider] in this testing phase will prove the concept of a free service to our citizens,” Hill said. “HarborLink will basically offer some advertising to the end user to offset the cost that would normally have been passed on to the user. This allows the service to be offered at no cost. The City will be leveraging access to areas on City-owned facilities and in the rights of way to allow installation of the access points. The City will also be providing the backhaul connectivity to the Internet. Quite a small investment for such a great possibility.”

Hill said the City would provide minimal financial commitment to the project in the form of Internet accessibility costs via the City’s existing network. He estimated that a few spots in the downtown test area would be activated during the holiday season, with the remaining infrastructure put in place over the next several months. The majority of the test area should be active and accessible to users by April 1. Hill emphasized that this WiFi effort will target open, outdoor spaces and not compete against existing wireless providers who serve business and residential customers.

Gee, neat-o. Or is it? Truck and Barter extrapolates:

My first guess is that the $5K a year the city "pays" now will skyrocket before long. Either the idea will grab so many people the system can't handle the load (imagine all those businesses deciding the skip paying for private broadband access for a couple of years, then trying to run webcasts through the same line every one at every fast food joint is trying to use to download the new Nelly single) and the city will be on the hook to expand it even more, or, and I think more likely, it will experience the same result as wifi spots in other downtown locals that see highly variable traffic that doesn't exhibit much of a demand, meaning that the advertisers may not realize a benefit for what they've paid out. In fact, I don't see the argument that swayed these "advertisers".

In the case of heavy demand beyond just the local kids surfing blogs and Friendset, I'm not sure how patient people would be with a heavy does of advertising. Personally, I'd pay to get a clean line and avoid having even more ads pouring at me. If the demand isn't heavy, who's going to see the advertising?

From the city's plan, it looks as though the advertising comes in the form of branded pages (such as log-on, and possibly frames?). Who pays attention to those, I'm not sure. And I'd predict a hack to be out in about 24 hours. The big plus I do see for the advertisers, however, is that the general audience is so oblivious to protecting computers from viruses and intrusion, that it won't dawn on people that without pricey software (or expert users versed in good open source stuff) this is the electronic version of licking the floor in a public restroom.

I’ll add my own hasty stitches:

• The idea that this service isn’t competing with private companies is ludicrous. There’s no reason to think that, if there truly is a demand for wi-fi in “open spaces,” then private companies wouldn’t pay to get access to them, so they could then sell access to customers. More likely is the idea that private companies just haven’t gotten to deployment in these open spaces yet. Or, alternatively, that they’ve been blocked from doing so by the city itself.

• Remember Y2K? The biggest concern toward the end, and the systems that required the most remediation, were state and local government systems. Their IT infrastructures, like most of their infrastructures, had been allowed to stagnate for decades. Since when is the government, at least local government, the vanguard of technology? Any city that deploys a wi-fi network will be stuck with it long after the technology is supplanted. It will become either increasingly irrelevant or increasingly expensive (i.e., to the taxpayers who inevitable subsidize it).

Either way, not so “neat-o.”

Turns out that the “free” (really “taxpayer-subsidized”) municipal wi-fi access in Philadelphia that everyone thinks will be so “neat-o!” isn’t going to be “free” after all:

The city will tap the private sector to implement its plan for blanketing most of Philadelphia with cheap, high-speed wireless Internet access. ... Though Philadelphia is seeking help from private companies to build the system, a nonprofit organization would own it and sell wholesale access to Internet service providers, which would market it back to city residents and businesses at capped rates expected to run between $16 and $20 per month. Street has backed the plan as a way to extend high-speed Internet service into parts of the city where most people can't now afford the $30 to $60 per month now charged by commercial operators.

So, at the end of the day, this was never about “free” wi-fi access or about convincing skeptics like me that a perfectly excludable good is somehow also a “public good” deserving of government provision. Instead, it was all about the Politics of Pull — a private company (not-for-profit notwithstanding), hand-picked by bureaucrats, gets to undercut, at taxpayer expense, the competition. Truck and Barter is all over this crass bait-and-switch:

What does all this accretion of regulatory reach and manpower provide for the city (at about three million at year for the next five years)? Wireless access at...wait for it...$20 a month instead of $30-60. Even taking the high side of the range, is it really possible that the one thing blocking the traditionally underserved from getting internet access is truly $40? Or could it be the lack of computers in the first place? [NOTE: I’ve been pointing this out from the beginning. --Kip]

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but my view of the average individual in the communities on the lacking side of the technology gap is that these aren't people/families sitting right at the margin, waiting for broadband access to drop a couple of dollars to finally get online.

But hey, the politicians “did something.” So we get both the Politics of Pull and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling together in one illogical boondoggle.

Why exactly is wi-fi Internet access so special as to warrant not-for-profit status? Surely food is more important to the poor than wi-fi. Why not set up full-scale not-for-profit supermarkets to undercut private chains? Remember, we are not talking about a public good and we are not talking about subsidizing the poor through vouchers or tax credits or public Internet facilities (e.g., in public libraries). We are talking about flat-out short-circuiting a private market that is successfully operating — and competing — everywhere it has been allowed to.

"Cause I live and breathe this Philadelphia freedom
From the day that I was born I've waved the flag..."

Perhaps it's unsurprising that hyper-technophile Glenn Reynolds fell for the Politics of "Neat-O!" -- as so many libertarians have -- regarding municipal wi-fi:

There are some reasonable questions about municipal wi-fi: Will municipal governments log traffic, producing privacy problems? (You can bet that anyone who challenges a mayor or city council member will have his/her access records looked over by political operatives, if such records are kept). Will they keep up with improvements in the technology? Will they discourage competing systems? Will they succumb to the temptation to filter "unsuitable" content?

But of course the first -- and perhaps the only legitimate -- question that a libertarian ought to be asking is the one that so many sufferers of "Neat-O!" Syndrome evade so fecklessly: Why should the government be in the business of providing any private good, including wi-fi?

As I have blogged several times before (see chain below), my primary opposition to municipally-provided (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) Wi-Fi Internet access is of course that it simply isn't a public good, any more that cell phone service is.

Another point I've made is that governments, especially local governments, have terrible track records when it comes to maintaining or upgrading their technologies to keep pace with innovation. If local governments undercut the private sector, then people will be "stuck" with Wi-Fi, even as new technologies become available.

Now we have news that, while cities and bloggers continue to proclaim how "neat-o!" municipal Wi-Fi is, the technology is already starting to die:

Verizon Communications Inc. is turning off the free wireless Internet access it beams from New York City telephone booths for DSL subscribers who use laptops away from home or the office.

The company revealed the decision on Wednesday as its Verizon Wireless unit announced plans to accelerate the deployment of a fee-based cellular Internet service in the New York area.
...
Back then [in 2003], Wi-Fi was exploding in popularity and Verizon was trying to jump-start its DSL business in a bid to catch up with rival providers of high-speed broadband service, particularly cable TV companies.
...
But with Verizon Wireless spending billions to upgrade its cell network for speedier Internet connections costing up to $80 per month, the company has decided the time has come to pull the plug on the free Wi-Fi network.
...
Verizon said the service, based on a technology called EV-DO, offers far wider coverage and seamless connectivity for roaming laptop users. A Wi-Fi signal, though usually several times speedier than the cellular Internet service, can only travel several hundred feet.

Now some might argue that, since the "greedy," profit-driven telecom company is shutting down its Wi-Fi hot-spots, that's all the more reason for the city to step in and provide its own free or non-profit service. But keep in mind why Verizon is shutting down its hotspots -- it has already determined that users want more and better service, and apparently EV-DO is the answer. It took less than two years for Wi-Fi to become a substandard technology; how long will it take before it is completely obsolete? (The answer probably is "just as much time as it takes for cities to build Wi-Fi networks.")

Just like cell phone service, just like cable television, just like computer networking, just like wired Internet access, so too is wireless Internet access evolving faster than even the private sector can seem to keep up. Who can claim with a straight face that the public sector will be able to keep up and provide a useful system for any viable length of time?

City governments should step out of the way and let the profit motive do what it does best -- give people what they really want. To the extent local hack politicians feel a desperate need to help "the poor," then they should consider some form of voucher. (And who the heck are "the poor" in this context anyway? The people who can afford a $2,000 laptop but can't afford a monthly EV-DO bill?)

Libertarians need to start seeing past the "neat-o" enticement of "free" Wi-Fi and trust the market, just like they do with all other private goods.

Here's a story about a popular Seattle coffee shop that is canceling its wi-fi hotspot service on weekends:

On the weekends, 80 to 90 percent of tables and chairs are taken up by people using computers.
...
Worse than just the sheer number of laptop users, Strongin noted, is that many of these patrons will camp six to eight hours -- and not buy anything. This seemed astounding to me, but she said that it was typical, not unusual. The staff doesn't want to have to enforce the cafe's unspoken policy of making a purchase to use the space (and the Wi-Fi), and on the occasions that they approach a non-buyer about a purchase asking, "Can I get you a beverage?" the squatter often becomes defensive, explains they’ve bought a lot in the past or just the day before.

Which invites the question: If the coffee shops and other locales that are offering hotspots should not be expected to subsidize other people's wi-fi Internet access, then why should taxpayers?

Hat tip to Hit & Run.

An interesting data point in the ongoing debate over municipal wi-fi:

T-Mobile USA disclosed user statistics from its Wi-Fi business for the first time Monday, reporting that 450,000 customers have paid to access the wireless Internet service in the past three months.
...
The Wi-Fi service is a key business for T-Mobile, which unlike many of its mobile phone rivals is not upgrading its cellular network to deliver high-speed Internet access in addition to phone service.

Doesn't sound like a public good to me. And if it's not a public good, then the government has no business providing it, especially out of bizarre claims of "helping the poor" (who apparently can afford laptops but not wi-fi subscriptions).

Philadelphia politicians continue to prove themselves immune to economic reasoning, and common sense, by forging ahead with their plans to provide "free" (which of course means taxpayer-subsidized) wi-fi Internet access: (WSJ -$)

"Our goal is to ensure that all neighborhoods, regardless of economic status, have access to high-speed wireless," said Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer and a board member of Wireless Philadelphia Inc., a nonprofit organization created by the city to implement the project.

Of course, the question of how exactly "all neighborhoods, regardless of economic status," (i.e., the poor) are supposed to acquire wireless-ready laptops remains unanswered.

It seems to me the poor have better things to worry about than having "free" wireless Internet access.

This is the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling on steroids.

New York City is jumping on the "free" (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) Wi-Fi hysteria:

The city is quietly installing a free Wi-Fi network at ten parks across the city.
...
The service is already available in Battery Park. The Parks Department says it should be up and running in Central Park, Union Square, Washington Square, and Riverside Park in mid-to-late fall.

Prospect Park, Flushing Meadows, Orchard Beach, Van Cortlandt, and Pelham Bay will be wired in early 2006.

Some hasty stitches:

--Why install Wi-Fi "quietly"? Wouldn't it help if people actually knew about it?

--Why no mention of the cost?

--Does it really make sense to rig New York's parks for Wi-Fi when they are so seasonally limited? How many people lie down on the Great Lawn to surf the web in February? Perhaps that's why the private telecommunication companies such as Verizon don't offer it. Go figure.

--In order to use Wi-Fi in a park, you must: (a) have a laptop, and (b) actually use the park. So every single New York City taxpayer who does not meet both criteria is being taxed for the minuscule fraction who do. This is somehow a manifestation of what New York City's notoriously extremist liberals call "economic justice"?

My guess is that all these considerations are well-understood by the hack politicians and bureaucrats behind this project. Which is exactly why they're not publicizing it.

Yet more proof that Wi-Fi Internet access is not a public good and should therefore not be provided by local governments:

Online search leader Google is preparing to launch a wireless Internet service, Google WiFi, according to several pages found on the company's Web site on Tuesday.
...
The Google Web site has several references to Google WiFi but provides few details. One page refers to a product called "Google Secure Access," which is designed to "establish a more secure connection while using Google WiFi."

A separate page offers a free download of Google Secure Access, carrying the headline: "Your wireless connection is almost ready to use."

Google declined to comment. The company has already launched a sponsored WiFi "hotspot" in San Francisco's Union Square district in April with a start-up called Feeva.

Which would you trust more for up-to-date, reliable, secure wi-fi access: Google or your local hack bureaucrats? And who should pay for wi-fi access: the people who actually use it (i.e., Google users, customers and advertisers), or the people who don't (i.e., taxpayers)?

More thoughts at Truck and Barter.

As widely suspected, Google has submitted a bid to provide no-fee wi-fi Internet access in San Francisco:

Offering free WiFi service could pay off for Google if the greater access gives the company more opportunities to field search requests and ultimately serve up more advertising -- the vehicle that provides virtually all of its profits.

Building its own wireless Internet network connection also would help Google save money by reducing the fees that it pays to the telecommunications middlemen that provide a bridge between the company's data centers and Internet service providers whenever Web surfers make a search request.

The precise business model of Google's wi-fi experiment (i.e., revenue-enhancing or cost-cutting) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that no-fee wi-fi is not the same as "free" wi-fi -- free wi-fi does not exist. Somebody, somewhere pays for it.

Where wi-fi is provided, "free," by municipal governments, the cost is borne by taxpayers, regardless of whether they use the service or not. But where wi-fi is provided, "free," by private companies such as Google, the cost is borne by those who do use it, either directly via subscription fees or indirectly via advertising.

Regardless, Google has now proved -- definitively, conclusively and irrefutably -- that wi-fi is not a public good. Local governments therefore have no justification providing it at taxpayer expense.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom believes that there is a "right" to free wi-fi Internet access:

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.
...
Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

Of course, wireless access to the Internet also requires access to a laptop. For Newsom to claim that there is a "right" to wi-fi requires, as a matter of elementary logic, that the poor must also have a right to free laptops. Think he can persuade Google to provide those too?

And why exactly is there a "right" to wireless Internet access but not, say, a "right" to free cable television, or free DVD rentals, or free cell phone service, or free porn magazines? What exactly distinguishes wi-fi from any other luxury of modern middle-class life?

Newsom attempts a half-hearted answer by invoking the same nonsense the stadium apologists across the country use to rationalize their boondoggles: making the city "competitive." I dare Newsom to cite one major business or convention that will go on record as saying that free wi-fi is the definitive criterion in their decision whether to locate in San Francisco or elsewhere (as opposed to, say, tax rates).

When hack politicians like Newsom start throwing around the term "rights" -- and especially the term "civil rights" -- for something so clearly not a right as accessing the Internet in a Starbucks or a businessman's hotel lobby, it does nothing but debase the currency of true rights.

And in case you've missed my dozen or so other posts on the topic: wireless Internet access is simply not a public good, and municipalities therefore have no business providing it, especially not at taxpayer expense.

Other thoughts at Catallarchy, Out of Control.

A surprising and heartening development in the municipal wi-fi mania. Philadelphia, one of the first cities to propose "free" (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) municipal wi-fi Internet access, has ended up accepting an offer from a private company to provide the service at no taxpayer cost:

Under the terms of the EarthLink proposal, no city or taxpayer dollars will be used to fund the project. EarthLink will finance, build, and manage the wireless network, and share revenue with the city's Wireless Philadelphia initiative.
...
EarthLink's proposal to pay for the cost of building the network was among the major reasons the city selected the provider, Neff said. The city's request for proposals did not require that the Wi-Fi vendor pay for the cost of building the network; the city had considering using bonds or private funding to allow Wireless Philadelphia to pay for construction, she said.

To review: If municipal wi-fi is such a neat-o idea that is so highly sought by so many people, then private companies will tend to want to offer it and will tend to be able to do so profitably. Taxpayers need not have anything to do with it. This is entirely as it should be (ignoring for now the issue of government-granted monopolies, which is a separate question altogether).

Bottom line: If you come, they will build it.

Ever since Philadelphia first announced plans to implement taxpayer-subsidized wi-fi Internet access (remember: there is no such thing as "free" access), I have been critical of the concept for a simple reason: wireless Internet access is not a public good (because it is excludable) and therefore is not a legitimate function of government.

For the most part I've been a lone voice, even among supposed "libertarians" who seem eager to sacrifice principles in the name of "neat-o!"

One exception has been the good folks at Out of Control, who blog about a variety of urban planning issues, including the folly of municipal wi-fi, from a strictly libertarian perspective.

Now they point to a study that concludes -- surprise! -- that the advocates of taxpayer-subsidized wi-fi have consistently overstated the benefits and understated the costs of their proposals:

The report estimates that the average cost of building and maintaining a municipal wireless network is $150,000 per square mile over five years. According to the report, roughly 50% of current initiatives will fail to breakeven even if the benefit of the initiative is assumed to be $25 per user per month.

As Out of Control observes:

It is no coincidence that in the wake of these reports, we have seen municipalities opt to shift risk, cost and operational responsibility to the private sector. It started with Philadelphia, which ditched its orginal plan to own a city-owned wholesale broadband backbone and instead turned over the whole kit-and-caboodle to EarthLink.

Demand creates its own supply. If there is an unmet need for an umbrella wireless Internet zone in a municipality, then revenue-hungry telecommunications companies will trip over themselves to offer it. Just add a little competitive bidding to keep them honest, and the entire enterprise can be established without a single taxpayer dollar committed to it.

Which is exactly how it should be.

Possibly:

The study, commissioned by the city's Economic Development Corporation, will examine "whether there is a need for a citywide broadband network as a municipal initiative" and what legal, technical, logistical and economic challenges such a project would involve, according to a request for proposals that the city released on June 14.
...
Consultants' proposals for conducting the broadband feasibility study are due on July 21. The first goal would be to assess "the existing state of broadband services" and decide whether a citywide network — or a more limited network — is needed.

That's easy: no.

You can finally access the Internet while in the airport, at the worksite, or even in a taxi with the freedom of the largest high-speed wireless network in the U.S. BroadbandAccess from Verizon Wireless covers more than 1/3 of Americans in more than 180 major metropolitan markets.

You want wireless access in Central Park? Fine. Do what I do and subscribe to it, for $60 per month.

Oh, you don't want to pay $60? You want taxpayers to pay it for you? And that makes you a "hi-tech telecommunications visionary" and "Twenty-First Century urban planner"? Go figure. I thought it just made you a leech.

Wireless broadband is already ubiquitous not just in New York City but practically everywhere in the U.S. Municipal wi-fi, meanwhile, can be made available by the free market anywhere that demand arises. And where demand doesn't arise, it would be a waste to provide it anyway.

Bottom line, unchanged from all my previous posts: Wireless Internet access is no more a public good than is wireless telephone service. It is perfectly excludable -- those who want it can pay for it and those who don't want it should not be compelled to subsidize those who do. Furthermore, governments have no business competing with private firms in private markets. It's the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Broadband. And it's pure nonsense.

Why won't this absurd concept die the miserable death it deserves?

Here's a rarity: Me saying "Hooray for the FCC!"

Continental Airlines won a battle to offer high-speed Internet service in its frequent flier club at Boston Logan International Airport, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission ruled on Wednesday.

The FCC ruled against the Massachusetts Port Authority, or Massport, which ordered airlines in 2005 to unplug their wireless and wireline high-speed Internet services in their lounges and instead use the airport's fee-based system.
...
Massport argued that Continental's free service would interfere with its network, raise safety concerns and violate lease agreements.

I can't speak to MassPort's claim about its leases with airlines; subject to FAA oversight (since they are government-chartered monopolies), public airports should be free to contract with airlines, vendors and other businesses as they see fit.

But as every other airport in America demonstrates, you can easily have a safe, non-interfering wi-fi network in an airport. Whom did the Logan Airport bureaucrats think they were kidding?

This bait-and-switch money grab by Logan Airport mimics almost perfectly the recent online gambling ban. It was all about the money, so the first and most important thing that the politicians absolutely had to do was insist repeatedly that it wasn't about the money. So they invented not only false but patently absurd alternative excuses about — what else? — "risks."

The FCC will of course not be on my Christmas Card list this year (neither will Continental Airlines). But a smirkworthy incident nonetheless.

To review: Ron Paul is not a libertarian, but a radical anti-federalist. He loves government, but only at the state and and local level. His problem is only with "big government," not with "lots of government." He loves the First Amendment, but hates the Fourteenth.

The two doctrines, libertarianism and anti-federalism, have certain similarities and certain differences. Unfortunately, too many libertarians, in a stampede to idolize Paul*, have focused only on the former and have overlooked the latter.

So I wonder how Ron Paul, and the libertarians who embrace him, would feel about this (take a deep breath):

A federal law banning state laws banning local laws allowing municipal wi-fi networks.

The reason my head hurts when I ponder this question is not so much from the "federal versus state versus local" conundrum (which I consider a Hobson's choice), but rather because it reflects a contest between two of the great evils of politics and excessive government at all levels: rent seeking (i.e., telcos should not try to "buy" a federal ban on muni wi-fi) and the public provision of private goods (i.e., cities should not be offering taxpayer-subsidized wi-fi in the first place).

The anti-federalists might reflexively insist that the proposed federal law in the only abomination and that states and cities are within their rights powers to do as they please. But the true libertarians should, I think, simply shrug in resignation -- whoever wins, we lose.

Discuss.

(Via Techdirt.)

---

*Am I the first to come up with phrase "Paulbearers" to describe the Texan Representative's supporters?

You all know the primary Tragedy of the Commons. When property is owned publicly, or its use is subsidized such that the price to use it is artificially low or even zero, it will be overused. If no one owns the meadow and if everyone may freely graze their cows on it, then the meadow will be overgrazed to everyone's detriment.

But there is another Tragedy of the Commons: When property is managed publicly, it will often be underused. The politician or bureaucrat responsible for managing the commons may decide, rationally or irrationally, that sheep should be kept off the commons, or that a new and improved variety of grass should not be planted on it, or that the meadow should be off limits on Sundays, or that gay weddings can't be performed on it, etc.

Exhibit B:

Want to browse Vanity Fair magazine on the Denver airport's free Wi-Fi system? Sorry. You'll have to buy it at the newsstand, because DIA's Internet filter blocks Vanity Fair as "provocative."

You can't get to the popular gossip column perezhilton.com on DIA's Wi-Fi signal, either. Or the hipster-geek favorite boingboing.net. Or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit photos, even though the magazine's bare-breasted cover shot is on prominent display at airport stores, right next to Penthouse and Hustler.
...
[Airport bureaucrats] say they're using prudent judgment in a public, family-friendly atmosphere.

Of course, one bureaucrat's "prudent judgment" is another bureaucrat's "too prudent" and yet another's "not prudent enough." Such is always the case with hopelessly vague and subjective terms such as "prudent" (or, worse, "provocative").

So, in this instance of the "secondary" Tragedy of the Commons, "not free, but unlimited" has been replaced, not with "free and unlimited" but rather with "free, but limited." And arbitrarily limited at that. That's not a per se improvement; it's merely exchanging one constraint for another -- at the whim of a low-level bureaucrat.

An airport may well be a natural monopoly that is best owned publicly. The same cannot be said for wi-fi (which, since it is perfectly excludable, is never a public good). Even wi-fi at a public airport is not a public good. To avoid the secondary Tragedy of the Commons, the Denver airport should stick to its knitting and leave the wi-fi business to bona fide businesses.

---

Incidentally, here is Exhibit A, back from 2006.