On Wednesday, the Orlando Sentinel wrote about people working out of their local Internet-enabled coffee shop, and the Wall Street Journal wrote about a partnership between DirecTV, an Internet provider, and an electric utility in Texas. Let's tie these together with a local focus, shall we?
In the Sentinel article, mobile professionals (mainly salespeople and small business owners) take up residence in a corner booth at their local Panera, Starbucks, or other coffee shop with wireless Internet. In most cases, this saves the worker either a commute to their office, or office rent. The coffee shop gets to sell their products to the worker and the people they are meeting with, and may charge them for the Internet usage.
Meanwhile, DirecTV announced a deal where they are going to sell high-speed Internet to their customers, initially in Texas. The Internet service will be provided a partner company, and will be delivered over power lines..for which the partner will pay rent to the local electrical utility.
So we reflected on the current public wireless Internet trials around here. The dirty not-so-secret of public wireless is that it doesn't always penetrate building walls very well, as was proven during St. Cloud's initial rollout. And we have yet to see masses of people walking down the sidewalks working on their laptops. And while it may be "free" to the user, someone, somewhere is paying for it through taxes or utility fees, prompting a remark we read that said 'if cities are giving away Internet for free as a necessary service, shouldn't water also be free?'
Here's the tie-in. Businesses use free or pay-per-use Internet as a marketing tool to attract customers. But the business doesn't get the Internet service for free...they pay for it. Perhaps local providers should be focused on using their existing distribution mechanisms to deliver Internet service (and generate revenue from doing so), and then let the business-customer relationship determine how that bill is paid.
And for the government (police/fire/utility) wireless network? If the cost-benefit analysis says that it works out to be more advantageous than paying a monthly bill to a wireless provider, we say go for it. But if you're offering services for free, we'd like to select the one we want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Are you suggesting, Gasp!, that the local officials schedule talks amongst the citizens that run the citites and counties and actually listen?? They are "smarter" than us and will "always" do whats in our best interest despite the cost or effectiveness of the project. You were, I believe at the first meeting in St Cloud, when the talking heads presented their plan for "free" internet services. You heard me question that and you heard the excuses and why it would work. The citizens are still awaiting the promises. Kissimmee? So far a joke, but it will be attainable with the correct leadership and planning. Time will tell.
Free Wireless Internet is just another government subsidized program that taxpayers have to pay for without receiving any benefit from it. It is one of the things that they whine about when they say they can't cut our taxes because it cost money to run government. They will never cut our taxes because of birthday parties, street parties, bus parties, and free wireless internet access.
I think the reason cities are getting into things like this are to help justify their bloated tax and fee systems. It is like when you go into a nice department store and they give you a cup of coffee, or even a massage. These are things that businesses do to let you know you are going to pay more for the products they sell. The truth is you are still buying some knock off from China that will probably kill you.
Post a Comment