Somerville may install free wireless in Davis

[ceo]

From the Somerville Journal:

[John] Connolly also wants wireless Internet service for all of Davis Square.
The Ward 6 alderman is asking City Information Technology Director James Halloran to see if wireless Internet service can be provided to all of Davis Square by installing "a few well-situated" antennae.
"Perhaps it's something we can achieve by this fall," Connolly said.
Coffee shops, including Starbucks and the Diesel Café, already offer wireless Internet service inside their businesses for a nominal charge.
Connolly said he'd like Halloran to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and the Davis Square Business Interest Group to see if the service could be extended to laptop computer users sitting in parks and benches in the square.
If the service works in Davis Square, Connolly said maybe it could be brought to other squares in the city, too.

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much it would hurt Diesel, who presumably get a fair bit of revenue from selling net access inside their space. (And Starbuck's, too, but I care a whole lot less about them.)

[fanw.livejournal.com]

Considering most of the money goes to the ASP, and considering that Diesel just expanded and continues to sell overpriced coffee to a packed house from morning to night despite having Starbucks across the street... well, let's just say I'm not too worried for them.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Whether or not you're concerned about Diesel's bottom line, it's incredibly unfair to use taxpayer dollars to fund a government enterprise as a competitor to a private business.

[fanw.livejournal.com]

Um, I suppose we could all take taxis to work, but I'm sure glad there's public transit. I mean, I'm not saying free wireless is the same thing as the T, but for every government service (Medicare, public transit, police) there is a private equivalent and yet most people like having these services. As technology advances, society just has to choose what is a "right" and what is something people have to pay for.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Things like public transit and Medicare exist largely because previous, private attempts at providing those services proved unprofitable. The Boston Elevated Railway, predecessor to the T, was a private company. So were the companies that ran the boston-area commuter rail system. Government took those services over because people and businesses had come to rely on these bits of infrastructure but it was not profitable for a private company to provide the service.

As for Medicare, no private insurance company could make money solely off insuring those who are most likely to be in need of expensive medical care. Private medical insurance for working-age Americans makes money because the healthy subsidize the sick--that's how insurance works in general.

It's one thing for government to take over a needed-but-failing bit of infrastructure, like public transit. It's another thing entirely for government to compete with a currently-profitable private enterprise on a non-level playing field and thereby drive the profitable enterprise out of business.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

What fanw said. Not to mention Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Anyway, it sounds like they want to do this working *with* the businesses. And why *shouldn't* the city get some revenue providing wireless in the parks? Sounds like a fun idea to me -- some people *like* being outside. :)

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

See my reply to fanw--the situation between Medicare and free wireless isn't even remotely analogous.

And if that many people like being outside, and want wireless access while doing so, let them pay for it. Why should the taxpayers subsidize this?

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

I admit that on my first read, I missed the fact that they want this to be *free*. :) However, it wouldn't surprise me if this could be done at little cost by getting companies to donate the equipment and bandwidth in return for advertising.

As to why, well, I'd rather have free wireless than the inaugeration ball. Why did I subsidize that? The question is, I suppose, what is the purpose of government. I mean, why does Somerville put on ArtBeat, Open Studios, etc?

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

I'm not in favor of funding a party for Dubya and his cronies either. If they want an Inauguration Ball, let GWB pay for it out of his own pocket--or let the Republican Party pay for it.

as far as ArtBeat or Open Studios, those events aren't actually competing with for-profit businesses. In fact, they draw people from the surrounding area to Davis Sq., who hopefully spend some money and enrich the local economy while they're there. It's tourism. Funny to use the words "tourism" and "Somerville" in the same sentence, but that's what it is.

[mr-fancy-pants.livejournal.com]

>as far as ArtBeat or Open Studios, those events aren't actually competing with
>for-profit businesses. In fact, they draw people from the surrounding area to
>Davis Sq., who hopefully spend some money and enrich the local economy while
>they're there. It's tourism. Funny to use the words "tourism" and "Somerville"
>in the same sentence, but that's what it is.

Well, if there was free wireless in Davis, people with laptops might come and hang out in the parks around Davis to enjoy it. When they get thirsty/hungry, they may then come inside to the many establishments of the Sq and then "hopefully spend some money and enrich the local economy while they're there." :)

Granted it wouldn't draw as many people as ArtBeat, but it wouldn't last a day (or 2?), it would be permanent, which over time would draw in a lot of money. This assumes, of course, free wireless would draw new people in from surrounding areas, instead of just benefiting the people who already live here/come here on a regular basis.

[http://users.livejournal.com/deviant_/]

It can be unfair, and maybe even incredibly so. The same could be said of having government-managed trash pickup, and many other city services. Sometimes it's more reasonable for the city to do it, sometimes it's better for it to be in the hands of individual service providers.

These businesses aren't in the business of providing wireless service, and they probably don't want to be. They're using the wireless service -- which is typically provided by a third party, with that associated cost -- as an incentive people use to choose which case to spend time at. Very few customers are going to a cafe because it has wireless service, but many might choose which cafe to go to based, in part, on quality of the wireless service available.

That difference alone might counteract the addition of city sponsored wireless service. If the city does add service, it'll be unlikely that it is of uniformly high quality across all of the square. It may well be usable in many (and even most) locations, but the technical and monetary limitations make it fairly unlikely that you'd get good, reliable service in, for example, the very back of the newly expanded Diesel. This means that shops will still be able to add value with wireless service if they so choose; the situation will change from one where you pay for service to one where you pay for premium service.

One other thing to take into consideration is that it's fairly likely the city would go with the same wireless provider Someday Cafe and The Diesel are already using. These monetary profits these cafes gain on wireless service can't possibly be very appealing, because their prices are essentially fixed in both value and with each other. At the same time, they both incur the same fixed cost to provide the service. It's likely they'd both benefit by reducing the overhead of providing the service, and the real service provider would gain from having a larger contract. At the same time, the economy of scale would likely reduce the cost to individual consumers of the service.

It's entirely possible that this is a a good idea for all involved, but neither you or I have the data, I suspect, to tell for sure.

</rand off>

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Um... sure. Would you say the drinking fountains and streetlights commonly found in parks unfairly impact vendors of bottled water and flashlights? It's smart from a business perspective for community to spend tax money on such services which encourage more people to flock to an area thus increasing other revenue streams for local business. It's also smart from a community perspective for business since even people who use the common space just to gather without actually buying anything lend to the air of popularity of the region, and attract other people who will buy stuff.

[four-thorns.livejournal.com]

well, if they are thinking about using taxpayer dollars, i'd be more concerned about the unfairness to somerville residents outside of davis square, as they would be contributing an equal share of the bill without getting equal benefits from the project.

[slinkr.livejournal.com]

Probably not too much. Realistically, if they set up a wireless network to serve people who are outdoors in the square it's unlikely to provide great signal in the middle of an indoor space like Diesel unless Diesel cooperates. Depending on their profit margins, it might be better for Diesel to ditch their paid wireless and go in on a project like this.

It wouldn't be at all strategic for the city to hurt Diesel's business. Diesel pays taxes and draws people to Davis Square, which probably improves business for other stores and restaurants nearby.

[fanw.livejournal.com]

If I remember correctly, this idea was batted around and was supposed to be implemented in fall of 2003. It's a great idea and I hope they do it, but I don't have my hopes up anymore.

[flashbulb2.livejournal.com]

While the city is at it... they should also provide free cell phone service and free coffee in the Square. Why should my tax payments be limited to providing others with just free internet service?

hurray for jumping to conclusions

[kvarko.livejournal.com]

I saw nothing in the post that suggested that tax payers would fund this. (Nor anything to suggest they wouldn't, to be fair.)

It's possible that the idea is to have Davis Square businesses each put a small amount of money into it, so they all benefit without much cost to any one business. The post did say that Connolly is meeting with the "Davis Square Business Interest Group".

In San Diego, I stayed in a hotel in Little Italy and was pleasantly surprised to see that Little Italy was covered by free wireless, which I think was paid for by the businesses as a group. I was able to use the neighborhood wireless from my hotel room, as well as from local coffeeshops.

[c-m-i.livejournal.com]

My PSP does a little dance.

[ceo]

I suspect that the idea here is not to dig a new hole to throw taxpayer dollars down, but instead to make it more attractive for people to hang out in the Square with their laptops, and presumably patronize local restaurants etc. while they're there. (And if the City is paying a flat rate for its Internet connection, the cost for this ought to be pretty minimal.)

I don't know what effect it would have on Diesel, actually. On the one hand, I expect their share of the revenue from their wireless service is pretty minimal. On the other hand, if there's wireless all over the Square, that means people no longer have to go into Diesel (or Starbucks) to use it.

[tsuki-no-bara.livejournal.com]

but they could go into the diesel, buy a coffee, and take it back outside, freeing up more chairs for those of us who like sitting inside. :>

What Motivates Alderman Connolly?

[lena-a-mermaid.livejournal.com]

Why did Alderman Jack Connolly suddenly come up with this Free Wireless Idea? Could it be because he is running for re-election in the fall? Could it be that he has an opponent who is young and dynamic and likely to appeal to those folks who use wireless internet? Hmmm, let me think about that. Could it be that this was a plan already by the mayor’s office who threw Jack a bone by letting him use the introduction of the plan as a campaign strategy? Hmmm, don’t know.

As for free internet in the parks...I would love that. I would use it. Perhaps since our cable companies RCN and COMCAST are allowed to do business in this city as a privilege, that they could be convinced to offer the service outside as a community donation. Of course I doubt they’d give anything free unless forced.

i have no problem

[enlow.livejournal.com]

with people doing good things for political reasons, its the reality of the world. the important thing is to retain your perspective and realize them for what they are. It sounds like you have your own perspective and will not be swayed by this propsal. But its hardly dirty pool on connolly's part. Its actually pretty transparent campaign strategy and not underhanded.

Now, am I the only one who thinks its sort of against the point of going to a park to bring along the internet?

I thought parks were for enjoying nature.

am I nuts?

?

Re: i have no problem

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

A lot of urban parks are pretty minimal on the nature, but are basically paved areas with benches. Hey, it's still a place to hang out outside.

I certainly don't need 'net at Trum Field. :)

Re: i have no problem

[yangelina.livejournal.com]

I visit parks for various reasons. If I had some work to do on a labtop and it's nice out, I'd probably go out to the park instead of sitting at home.
So, you're right, parks are for enjoying nature. It would be super awesome to be able to enjoy nature while I'm busting my butt working.
Having cake and eating all of it. :)