City-wide wi-fi abandoned by Dublin City Council

A report commissioned by Dublin City Council says that a free metropolitan wi-fi network shouldn't be pursued because it would run foul of European Commission regulations on state aid.
"If we went the whole hog the Commission would probably shut it down," said Fine Gael councillor Naoise O'Muiri, a committee member, to this blog. "The telcos are powerful companies and would have resources to fight it, too."
But what about the examples that US cities such as Philadephia have set?
"Over there, it's much less regulated," said O'Muiri. "There's an obsession with market over here and that's definitely a factor."
The committee is relying heavily on a European Commission decision earlier this year concerning a plan by authorities in Prague to build and operate a citywide wi-fi network for schools and other public utilites.
While the Commission allowed the scheme to proceed, its rationale for doing so implied that any similar project which discommoded a private sector player could violate EU competition rules.
The report, which will be recommended by members of the Council's wi-fi committee, recommends pilot projects in three "disadvantaged" areas of Dublin instead. The areas are Ballymun, Ballyfermot and a small section area of Dublin 8 and Dublin 2 around the Liberties and Thomas Street area.
It is possible, too, that such wi-fi access may be limited to government services, such as motortax.ie. And the trials are mooted to last three years at a cost of between €600,000 and €1 million each.
Personally, I'm very disappointed in this outcome. Wi-fi services in Dublin are few and far between and are very costly. I don't fully accept that Brussels is the problem: there are so few wi-fi operations in Dublin that it should be possible to come to some sort of compensation programme, even giving operators a small piece of the (much larger) city-wide revenue pie.
It could be argued that newer HSDPA services, with speeds of 3Mbs, is now a cheaper solution. But this is no use to business travellers or visitors from abroad, as they require annual contracts from mobile operators.
Councillors are likely to trumpet this as a triumph in the fight against the digital divide. But that's not what this should have been about.

Comments

[Antoin O Lachtnain]

Why don't they roll out fon? FON's model doesn't contravene the EC rules. Also, it's very inexpensive to roll out, maybe EUR 50,000 or less for a trial. (FON would consider providing the equipment for free.)

[Evert Bopp]

Dublin city council never intented to only provide free access (and rightly so). In discussions that I had with Naoise last year providing free access was discussed as part of the service with faster paid access as part of a tiered access structure. A completely free network will be shut down through legal action faster than you can say "wifi".
The commercial operators will take it to the EU courts and that will be the end of it.
See: http://wimaxxed.blogspot.com/2007/05/news-from-european-commissioner-on.html
for an insight into EU policy.
The situation in the US is very similar as can be read here:
http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/6102/1/3/
http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/4617/1/3/

What would probably be a workable option for Dublin is to build a network owned by the council but which provides the option of fee-based access for all operators. The city can than offer low speed free access which would function more as a public service rather than a commercial service.

As for FON; this is just not a feasible option as it would favor one operator over others. FON's service is also not managed enough to provide the quality of service that is required for this type of network/service..

E.

[peter]

Whatever about a public Wifi network with free access, a public Wifi network itself shouldn't be excluded on competition grounds.
It is a great shame that ubiquitous wireless Internet access isn't established when it's technically so easy to do, in city centres for example.
This is analogous to the fact that say Eircoms wires and cables could (and should) have been retained under competition-neutral public ownership, with private service providers competing in them.

Mobile phone HSPDA networks etc aren't great re yearly subs required, download limits etc, and network efficiency:
A wider issue is the sheer idiocy of using microwave frequencies for any mobile communication: not just re health, but efficiency in terms of signal spread.
Compare with how many masts your FM local radio needs to function anywhere, with your mobile phone requirement: and that's not related to multiple 2 way usage.
VHF frequencies with much greater geographical penetrative advantages (and therefore much cheaper, and also safer usage) are released in abundance when analogue TV finishes, but all the Comreg clowns can think about is instituting terrestrial digital TV, which you'd get anyway via mobile Internet re mobility and cable/satellite re high definition (with large screens) - HDTV using capacity that's simply not available terrestrially for any extent of such transmissions, quite besides using up terrestrial point to point mobile advantages that are completely inconsequential to living-room TV watchers.
While it's an international rather than just an Irish issue, idiotic politicians everywhere - please feel united.