Barriers to Free Wi-Fi

Federal and state governments usually promote competition for telecom services, but some states are blocking free Wi-Fi access.

Anush Yegyazarian, PC World

Got a question or comment? Write to Anush Yegyazarian.

Spokane, Washington; Grand Haven, Michigan; Rio Rancho, New Mexico; St. Cloud, Florida. These are just a few of an increasing number of U.S. cities that offer their residents and visitors a new service: free or fairly cheap wireless Internet access, either throughout the whole city or in key locations. Philadelphia and San Francisco, among other cities, have announced plans to follow suit: your tax dollars at work, in a very visible and potentially beneficial way.

But in some states, most recently Pennsylvania, legislators are moving to prevent cities from offering, or limit their ability to offer, such access. Louisiana and Missouri are two of the states that already have such legislation on the books. Although the Missouri law was fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, opponents of such laws lost. The Supreme Court found that states have the right to ban cities and other "political subdivisions" from providing telecommunications services.

Why have states taken such actions? The primary reason is pressure from telephone companies and other businesses that offer broadband services and don't want the municipal competition.

As I see it, however, protectionist actions by state legislatures actively hurt residents--the constituents that lawmakers are supposed to protect.

Ironically, these state actions come at a time when government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission are striving to keep other Internet and telephony-related services, such as Voice over IP, under federal jurisdiction and less regulated--all in the name of fostering better services overall through greater, not less, competition.

Wi-Fi Hotspot Users

Just who will take advantage of city-provided Wi-Fi access? My guess is that many of these people are like me, professionals who already own a Wi-Fi-enabled notebook and occasionally must--or prefer to--leave their cave-like offices and work or surf the Net in a new place, perhaps a park or a café. I'd imagine students would also make up a goodly portion of those who may take advantage of free wireless networking. But would any of us give up our own Internet connections and use only the city's?

Perhaps cash-strapped students might, if they lived off-campus and couldn't access their school's network. But I can't see myself giving up a reliable, private, and secure Internet connection just because wireless service is available in parts of my town.

Moreover, municipal Wi-Fi can reach a number of consumers who might otherwise have to wait years for broadband access--those in rural areas, for example, where telephone and cable companies have not laid down wires because there's not enough profit to be made.

Problems With Shared Access

There are several reasons why consumers with wired broadband service are unlikely to drop it in favor of a municipal Wi-Fi service.

For starters, as anyone who's used a Wi-Fi hotspot knows, even fee-based access points are sometimes plagued by service problems. You're at the mercy of unpredictable interference from nearby networks and other wireless equipment on the same frequency, not to mention an unknown user load as you and countless fellow surfers pile onto the same connection. Even when I'm surfing purely for pleasure, checking out my favorite news sites or movie preview sites, intermittent connections get on my nerves. When I'm working and trying to finish a project, they're simply not acceptable, and I will pay for cable or DSL to ensure that I have a good, reliable connection. That's strike one against relying exclusively on public Wi-Fi.

Moreover, when you use public wireless networking, you open yourself and your data up to potential spies and hackers. You can mitigate this problem with firewalls, encryption for your most sensitive data, and up-to-date antivirus programs and software patches, but it is still a concern. That qualifies as strike two against a municipal Wi-Fi-only model.

Lastly, unless you live in a small town where the whole area is covered, chances are you won't always be in the coverage area. That could mean you'd have to leave your home to use the city's Wi-Fi Internet access. Now, while I do like to leave my home office and my office building on occasion, I don't want to do it just to surf the Net. And I'm certainly not willing to move to be in the city's coverage area. That's strike three against abandoning my wired broadband service for public Wi-Fi.

That batting average would hardly lead to mass desertion of paid broadband services.

No City-Sponsored Wi-Fi?

You can argue that cities shouldn't provide Wi-Fi access at all. It could cost an ever-increasing number of tax dollars to keep the service usable as more and more people take advantage of it. You can also argue that such a service primarily benefits citizens who probably can afford to get it on their own. After all, though the access is free or very cheap, you still need to pony up for a computer system to get it; so it doesn't help those on the other side of the digital divide all that much.

But in my opinion, the very last reason to outlaw publicly provided Wi-Fi access is because of any threat it might pose to poor little broadband access companies. Especially in light of the government's consistent push towards greater competition in the Internet arena, and President George W. Bush's stated goal of providing broadband access to ever more people.

It's time for states to get with the program, too. They need to foster competition--and therefore better services--instead of stifling it.