Interesting. Many (including you if I remember correctly) have been pushing for a nonprivate model. Philly seems to show, at least anecdotally, that a private model doesn't work. But let's forget them for these purposes because I think there are just too many differences for it to be a fair comparison. Let's look at Minneapolis. Is it going to work? I've heard mixed results so far from people who have subscribed to USI. I have wanted to subscribe to test it out. But I live in one of the problem areas. I live in Marcy-Holmes, kinda where Northeast meets Southeast. Just blocks from here you can get USI; but not here. And now all the rage is Xohm. Or Clearwire. Or Blazing Fast 4G. Whatever they're calling it these days. Is 4G going to make citywide Wi-Fi obsolete? Hard to say. What I am fairly certain of, however, is that Wi-Fi will become less relevant in high-income areas. Which means Wi-Fi can still serve low-income areas, which is something that has always been touted as a Wi-Fi advantage. But despite your (and my) want to "bridge the digital divide," citywide Wi-Fi becomes much less politically viable if it only advances the poor. If also becomes much less viable if it has a strong commercial competitor, like 4G. I hope citywide Wi-Fi programs can prosper. I'm just not sure they can; and from what I've seen, they have significant challenges to overcome.
Doug Hamlin | Homepage | 05.16.08 - 12:43 am | #