No sound reason for Philadelphia to fund wi-fi

I noted with interest "Cities prevented from installing wi-fi." Inquirer, December 1, 2004. Here.

Might I share with you a number of essential concerns that didn't make it into your summary dispatch?

First, a disclosure. I represented the public interest in utility regulation, as counsel to the Michigan Public Service Commission and as Delaware's first Public Advocate, for two decades. I've never taken a dime from a utility company.

As a professional observer, I'm familiar with large and small investor-owned utilities and large and small publicly-owned utilities. I've examined public and private utilities in large cities and small towns. I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that it's very difficult to make a logical argument in 2004 for the creation of municipally-owned broadband systems. There are exceptions - but those exceptions will be found in rural areas where established local telecoms providers are reluctant to extend service.

It's the height of absurdity - illogical and cynical - to suggest that Philadelphia should go into the wireless telecoms facilities business, regardless of what entity ultimately operates the service. You may be unfamiliar with some of the critical underlying facts.

1. Rather than promoting competitive telecoms providers, Mayor John Street and the present city council made it impossible for an established suburban competitor to offer combined cable/broadband/telecoms services in Philadelphia. Though they provide service adjacent to the city, RCN couldn't get a hearing on their request to provide service within the city.

Coincidence - or something more - that Comcast Cable's world headquarters are across the street from Philadelphia City Hall?

2. Philadelphia operates the largest municipal gas company in North America, the Philadelphia Gas Works. PGW can barely service more than $1 billion in debt and has engaged in extraordinary financing to obtain natural gas supplies this winter. They're now shutting off tens of thousands of customers, many of whom are more than a year behind.

Does this suggest that Philadelphia should take on another municipal utility?

3. What would make anyone think that the barrier to universal broadband access in Philadelphia - wired or wireless - is the nature of the provider? There are obvious economic limitations for many low income Philadelphians that prevent computer ownership as well as subscription to any conceivable self-supporting broadband access.

4. If there was a justification for attempting to provide wireless broadband access across Philadelphia, why would WiFi technology be the choice in 2004, most especially since other technologies are now being adopted that are much more suitable to the task?

Rather than being flush with public funding, Philadelphia is laying off public employees for the first time since 1981. There is no sound reason for a public WiFi initiative in Philadelphia at this time - though there are plenty of reasons for the administration to wish to divert public attention from the city's escalating difficulties.

All the best,
Evan Wilner