Municipal wireless broadband access is vital for economic and social regeneration, but who will foot the bill? asks Michael Burton, reporting on a recent conference
In 2007, the knowledge economy in the UK made up 40% of GDP, while 70% of jobs involved use of a computer.
IT alone represents 8% of GDP. Most householders in the UK and Europe can access broadband, but only a minority actively subscribe. In the EU, take-up is 21%, even though 93% of the population has access.
Broadband is important on socio-economic grounds. It boosts learning, jobs and regional competitiveness by making access to the Internet faster and cheaper. It reduces social exclusion, and last November, digital inclusion minister, Paul Murphy, said 17m adults still had no access to computers.
Wireless broadband adds to all these factors by making access available on the street, outside the confines of an office or home, with a telephone line free of charge. As Cllr Paul Tilsley, deputy leader of Birmingham City, says: ‘Successful cities need excellent connectivity – and a wireless infrastructure is essential.’
Municipal wireless networks improve council services for the same reasons, by enabling services such as CCTV to be moved around, by allowing social workers or highways engineers to be connected to data back in the office while still in the field, and increasing access at schools. Services, including streetlighting and parking use wireless applications. Wireless networks also reduce the amount of street clutter such as cables.
Motorola, for example, is working with the city of Asco in Catalonia, Spain, to install a municipal wireless broadband network. Apart from increasing bandwidth demands from business and residential users, the system is also being used to automate the control of traffic through the city’s network of narrow streets.
Yet, while the arguments for rolling out wireless networks are clear, the reality is that progress is slow. One major reason is finding the revenue stream to fund them. When one or two European councils attempted to fund local wireless networks themselves, they came up against EU competition laws.
The EU argued in the case of one city council, Prague, that where there were private suppliers in the area, it was anti-competitive for a council to use state aid to provide its own paid-for wireless network, even though the council saw it as an economic and skills development issue. In the end, Prague got around the rules by limiting the service to its own employees.
At Wireless and Digital Cities, a recent conference in Barcelona, EU official, Lucilla Sioli, head of the economic sector, information society and media directorate, had to defend the EU’s stance before an audience of municipal wireless enthusiasts.
She said that ‘while there are suppliers of broadband, it is not acceptable’ for a council to provide free access, ‘because it distorts competition’.
If there is a monopoly supplier charging high prices, then the council is on stronger grounds. She did admit, however, that there would be ‘further debate’ in 2009 on the issue.
But one delegate said that if councils could provide roads, then ‘why can’t they provide the super-information highway?’
James Farstad, head of the Minneapolis Wireless Network, told the same conference that broadband profits were shifting away from connectivity to content, application and services, all of which involved local government.
He added: ‘More and more councils realise they have to be customer-focused, and encouraging tele-working is a family-friendly, business-friendly public policy. And a key part of that is is the availability of affordable broadband.
‘Low-income families, in particular, need broadband for education and financial reasons.’
He continued: ‘By 2010, one-third of the council workforce will be mobile, and who’s going to pay for this? The answer is, we’re going to pay as the taxpayer, but the question remains, who has the guts to bill us?’
He insisted councils did not need to provide a free service. He said: ‘People pay for cable TV, so why do they expect Internet access to be free?’
One delegate put it more graphically when he said: ‘Why should I have to pay €20 in my hotel to get on to the Internet, when I could have it free with a wireless network? The hotel doesn’t charge for pillows, so why dies it charge for Internet access?’
Surprisingly, central and east European cities are among the pioneers, such as Tallinn in Estonia. Motorola is developing a municipal wireless broadband with the city of Varazdin, in Croatia, aimed at providing high-speed Internet access for all, especially in areas such as tourism, policing and public works. The city of Banja Luca, in Bosnia, is another pioneer. But UK councils, including Westminster City Council, Suffolk CC, Islington LBC and Bristol City Council, are also well-advanced on the wireless route.
Another, Halton Council, is also looking at providing a municipal wireless network or a digital ‘cloud’. Its chief executive, David Parr, says: ‘It’s about skills and helping residents develop skills, as well as attracting business.’
IT alone represents 8% of GDP. Most householders in the UK and Europe can access broadband, but only a minority actively subscribe. In the EU, take-up is 21%, even though 93% of the population has access.
Broadband is important on socio-economic grounds. It boosts learning, jobs and regional competitiveness by making access to the Internet faster and cheaper. It reduces social exclusion, and last November, digital inclusion minister, Paul Murphy, said 17m adults still had no access to computers.
Wireless broadband adds to all these factors by making access available on the street, outside the confines of an office or home, with a telephone line free of charge. As Cllr Paul Tilsley, deputy leader of Birmingham City, says: ‘Successful cities need excellent connectivity – and a wireless infrastructure is essential.’
Municipal wireless networks improve council services for the same reasons, by enabling services such as CCTV to be moved around, by allowing social workers or highways engineers to be connected to data back in the office while still in the field, and increasing access at schools. Services, including streetlighting and parking use wireless applications. Wireless networks also reduce the amount of street clutter such as cables.
Motorola, for example, is working with the city of Asco in Catalonia, Spain, to install a municipal wireless broadband network. Apart from increasing bandwidth demands from business and residential users, the system is also being used to automate the control of traffic through the city’s network of narrow streets.
Yet, while the arguments for rolling out wireless networks are clear, the reality is that progress is slow. One major reason is finding the revenue stream to fund them. When one or two European councils attempted to fund local wireless networks themselves, they came up against EU competition laws.
The EU argued in the case of one city council, Prague, that where there were private suppliers in the area, it was anti-competitive for a council to use state aid to provide its own paid-for wireless network, even though the council saw it as an economic and skills development issue. In the end, Prague got around the rules by limiting the service to its own employees.
At Wireless and Digital Cities, a recent conference in Barcelona, EU official, Lucilla Sioli, head of the economic sector, information society and media directorate, had to defend the EU’s stance before an audience of municipal wireless enthusiasts.
She said that ‘while there are suppliers of broadband, it is not acceptable’ for a council to provide free access, ‘because it distorts competition’.
If there is a monopoly supplier charging high prices, then the council is on stronger grounds. She did admit, however, that there would be ‘further debate’ in 2009 on the issue.
But one delegate said that if councils could provide roads, then ‘why can’t they provide the super-information highway?’
James Farstad, head of the Minneapolis Wireless Network, told the same conference that broadband profits were shifting away from connectivity to content, application and services, all of which involved local government.
He added: ‘More and more councils realise they have to be customer-focused, and encouraging tele-working is a family-friendly, business-friendly public policy. And a key part of that is is the availability of affordable broadband.
‘Low-income families, in particular, need broadband for education and financial reasons.’
He continued: ‘By 2010, one-third of the council workforce will be mobile, and who’s going to pay for this? The answer is, we’re going to pay as the taxpayer, but the question remains, who has the guts to bill us?’
He insisted councils did not need to provide a free service. He said: ‘People pay for cable TV, so why do they expect Internet access to be free?’
One delegate put it more graphically when he said: ‘Why should I have to pay €20 in my hotel to get on to the Internet, when I could have it free with a wireless network? The hotel doesn’t charge for pillows, so why dies it charge for Internet access?’
Surprisingly, central and east European cities are among the pioneers, such as Tallinn in Estonia. Motorola is developing a municipal wireless broadband with the city of Varazdin, in Croatia, aimed at providing high-speed Internet access for all, especially in areas such as tourism, policing and public works. The city of Banja Luca, in Bosnia, is another pioneer. But UK councils, including Westminster City Council, Suffolk CC, Islington LBC and Bristol City Council, are also well-advanced on the wireless route.
Another, Halton Council, is also looking at providing a municipal wireless network or a digital ‘cloud’. Its chief executive, David Parr, says: ‘It’s about skills and helping residents develop skills, as well as attracting business.’
