This is a great idea for at least two reasons. It "lifts all boats" in that it provides equal access regardless of income status. It also would put pressure on Qwest, Comcast, et. al. to lower their rates, improve their service, and add services. This is a win for current subscribers. In addition, I certainly wouldn't characterize the current broadband marketplace as competitive and this would definitely add an element of competition to the mix.

Wireless does have some problems. It is not very secure and implementing what security is available is definitely not a "no-brainer". (I recently installed a wireless router in my home and making it secure was by far the most challenging task.) Also, someone can - and will - correct me if I'm wrong, but the more users there are on a wireless "node" the slower the connection speed will be. For instance, I recently spent several hours in a local cybercafe while my car was being repaired. I could see my connection speed rise and fall as other users came and went. At its worst, with roughly 5 users, the connection speeds were still better than any broadband connection that I could realistically afford. Nonetheless, at the current limits of wireless technology, having hundreds or thousands of users attempting to share a 54 MBPS connection could make us long for the days of 28K modems.

As long as the city plans for security and technological improvements, they should go ahead, if only to piss off conservatives.

i agree with Mike...piss off the conservatives who want to charge more for something we can provide for less.

and you're right Mike, what use is a 28k wireless connection when everyone pigpiles on the node.

but, what the hell, let's figure that out after it's public.

Would I like free wi-fi anywhere I go in Portland? Absolutely. Unfortunately, as mentioned in the previous comments, there are technical and social hurdles galore in such a proposal. Whether free or low-cost, it essentially means the creation of a new public utility (ableit on a smaller scale than the City's proposed PGE purchase) and having to contend with all of the little joys that go with it.

Who's going to buy computers for the masses who can't afford them so they can actually take advantage of wireless access? If we don't have a plan for that, what's the point?

I'm a Portlander who's currently exiled to Texas while my wife completes her medical residency here. Because we live in a rural area I've torn my hair out trying to get decent internet access. Dialup runs at about 12k baud because the phone lines are bad. Cable and DSL don't exist because we are outside their coverage area. Satellite internet costs a fortune and is plagued with problems. I had an IDSD line installed by SBC and that cost about $90/mo for a 112k baud connection. Until finally a local company started putting up wireless internet transmitters on cell phone towers and providing high-speed wireless at $49/mo. It's not the regular wi-fi but rather you put an antenna on your roof and get your internet signal from a tower several miles away.

After all this struggle, I'd love to have free wireless at my home. But frankly I think it's a bad idea for the city to go down that road simply because of the tragedy of the commons effect. People will abuse it if they don't have ownership and don't pay. If bandwith is truly free and unlimited people will be endlessly downloading video, spammers will set up shop all over Portland, and all sorts of other abuses will follow until service becomes pathetic and erratic and most middle class users who can afford to will opt-out and go with private internet service just to get fast, reliable, and secure service again. Except that it will be more expensive and there will be less options because competition from the free city-run service will kill most local internet providers.

I think a better approach for a city like Portland is to enact policies that keep private internet service cheap, modern, and full of competition. I can't say what those policies would be but I'm sure there are plenty of ways that city government could encourage a proliferation of fast and cheap internet service.

As for the poor and kids who don't have internet connection? Well gee, compared to other utilities basic internet is pretty cheap. How many of those poor kids are living in houses that have premium cable and more than one TV? Perhaps a better approach to reach kids would be to have after-school computer labs available in every school library. Let kids stay afterschool under supervision to use computers. Most parents of poor kids would probably jump at the possibility of having their kids in afterschool free computer labs rather than kicking around at home unsupervised. And I remember reading something recently about how the state of Maine has given all school kids free laptops. That seems a better approach than subsidizing free internet for a lot of wealthy urbanites who really don't need it to be provided free.

It's a much better idea and a lot less expensive than the millions thrown at PGE, PGE Park, the Tram, the Trolley, the Pearl, the South Waterfront, the Convention Center...you get the idea.

Would Google be setting up shop in Wasco County if the county didn't have its wi-fi network that it built through a public/private venture?

Google is promising 100 middle-class salaried jobs there.

Something to think about when it comes to job creation...

Here, as well as in Ohio, Texas, etc are folks who want to prevent municipalities from providing broadband or at least make it difficult.

HB2445 Introduced by Butler (R) and Schauffler (D). Nothing's happened since a hearing in Feb??

Daily Wireless article

From the statement of the NY candidate:

"These days, if you understand the Internet, you have a ticket to success in our fast-changing information economy; if you don’t, you will be stuck running in place, struggling to get by." Seems a vast overstatement -- that understanding the internet is a ticket to success?

I think among those of us who spend a lot of time on line everyday are many who can't imagine life without it and can't envision a successful career without it but I reckon there are plenty of people out there not using it and doing just fine.

I also think that poor families who value education and are doing what they can to get their kids ahead have found a way to get access for their kids when they need it.

And for the poor families who don't expect any more from their kids then their parents expected from them -- who have drug or alcohol or mental problems or whatever -- free wireless internet isn't gonna make a damn difference for them. If they get a computer they'll use it primarily for entertainment.

I've been stuck on this statistic since I read it a couple of weeks ago -- 80% of the world's population has never used a telephone (not that they didn't own one, that they'd never used one).

One of the largest problems of our time is the change of government providing opportunities for our lower classes to move up to a better economic status to government providing subsidy for those who already have wealth to keep and expand it - shutting out those who would like to "climb the ladder". It is class warfare on every level. Education is denied to the poor that cannot afford the every more exclusive University system. Education at the High School level is more and more tied to fees for books, and anything extra-curricular. Tax burdens are shifted onto the working poor.

Why am I writing this here on this topic? Because it fits so closely. The proposal is to have the government subsidize $10 million to set up a system, then however much to maintain it. For whom? Laptops are still very expensive if you make $7.25 per hour. But if you already have wealth, government will cut your monthly expenses by $50 a month or so, and allow you to shift that bill to the taxpayers - again, many of whom cannot afford to participate in the technology they would purchase with their taxes.

I know that some reading this will be offended. They will see bringing this kind of technology to the poor as the solution and not the problem. That's fine, I am just pointing out that funding this project through taxes that are now increasingly biased to be upon the poor is regressive. Find a new funding method. If this were a new tax upon business, which in Oregon ranks 47th out of the 50 States for paying taxes, then I could go forward thinking this is progressive versus regressive.

Except citywide broadband doesn't help anyone on Steve's side of the mountains, and there are people who are happy to have an old 386 at home and go to the library to look things up on the Internet.

Yes, I understand the appeal to Blue Oregonians. But there are those who are middle aged and unemployed or under employed who could use $200 to put gas in the car, buy groceries, etc.

The only reason I even read this topic is that Steve's name showed up under "comments". In some ways this whole discussion shows the divide between employed people in Portland who are very computer savvy, and people in the rest of the state who may be out of work, just scraping by, or not care if they have broadband or an old dialup connection because they are grateful to have any Internet connection at all.

The Blue Oregon "water cooler" conversation should include those folks and not just employed computer savvy Portlanders.

LT, Why wouldn't this work on the "other side" of the mountains? Maybe in the furthest of the sticks it would be problematic, but in most cases as the city gets smaller, the ease of coverage gets easier. Even if a city can't cover all the costs, the fee for subscribers can be less than a dial-up connection. For example, Chaska (pop. 22,000) back in my home state, offers city-wide wireless for $16 or less.

The City of Portland is getting ready to move on wi-fi throughout Portland, but this will not be free access for everyone. Rather, the city intends to guide the selection of a private company to design, develop, own and operate a citywide, high-speed wireless network.

The decision to go with a private operator was a long conversation with folks throughout the community--government agencies, non-profits and small businesses. As some people have argued, wi-fi networks are not necessarily a good fit for public sector ownership. This could very well prove true. I don't think we know yet. But, what we do know is that we don't have the millions needed to build a network. We don't have the millions to maintain and upgrade a network as technology improves. The private network ownership provides the quickest rollout--though citywide coverage will take 4-5 years--and will most likely allow for multiple ISPs, driving down the cost and encouraging competition while focusing city investments on a single network.

Look for the resolution before council here. Attend the council meeting on June 29!

Exactly, Chris. The full text of the resolution should be available tomorrow afternoon . The City (local government) could have begun its own effort to supply its wireless needs--a smaller and more site specific endeavor. However, I think some key folks saw a great potential for partnering with local agencies, pooling together our resources, and serving as an incentive for a broader network that can blanket all of Portland.

And check out the project website, in its infancy, here.

Kari, LT and others -

When I wrote my comments about WiFi, I deliberately did not make it an urban/rule issue, as I do not believe that it is. It is my impression that in Crook Co. we are as "wired" as anywhere. In the Crook Co. Democratic Central Committee, only one member, an 85 year old women, doesn't have email. She tried it and didn't like it, being overwhelmed by the junk mail. We have a private subscription based WiFi provider that I can get on my laptop in my living room. My connection is better hard wired through the fiber optic network provided by our local cable TV company, so I use that and then a modem that allows a short range WiFi connection. My connection to the Internet is both faster and more flexible than that of my brother, and several other friends that live in Portland. -- LT, I'm just not so sure that this is a rural/urban or west/east side issue.

If anything, I wonder if per capita (Kari hates that kind of statistic) we are more wired than in Portland?

My point, and bottom line, is one of principal. Is it the proper role of government to provide this sort of service with tax dollars?

Lets go back in time a little -

When gas was used for heat and light, did government provide a gas connection for every home? No it was private business.

When electricity became available, did government take it to every home and install it? No, private utilities did most of this. What little was done by public utility districts was not done with "tax" dollars.

When telephones became available, did the government put a phone on every corner so everyone could make a free phone call? No, private companies did this.

When television became available, did the government put one in every home, or every 5th home? No, individuals paid for their reception of television.

Not in Oregon, not in Portland did any of these "utilities" get paid with tax dollars. There were some little dabbles in some of this - there was "rural electrication" where there was some reimbursement for long lines (killed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980's by the way). But in Oregon, we never spent tax dollars on any of this.

To just step in with tax dollars to provide this service, is to follow the philosophical lead of the Republicans who are using every branch of government to subsidize business by making private costs public.

Kari - don't be seduced! It's the first step to the Dark Side!