 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to R4M0N
Re: " Free Service" said by R4M0N:said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. I'm sure the $5 million from Earthlink helped. And you're right, it's possible the revenue won't cover it, but that's extremely doubtful. If they determine the usage is too high, they can just close it to the public. At least they are willing to give free access to the public a shot.
Are City governments not allowed to spend their tax revenues? Would you and WiFi4Milez like them to just put it in the bank and never use it?
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Matt:said by R4M0N:said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. I'm sure the $5 million from Earthlink helped. And you're right, it's possible the revenue won't cover it, but that's extremely doubtful. If they determine the usage is too high, they can just close it to the public. At least they are willing to give free access to the public a shot. Are City governments not allowed to spend their tax revenues? Would you and WiFi4Milez like them to just put it in the bank and never use it? You raise an interesting point. First, we dont know how much of that $5m the city had to spend just to get to this point. There might be nothing left already. More importantly, an application such as automated parking meter reading certainly doesnt require something as expensive and process intensive as wifi (with theoretical rates of 54Mbps). A cheaper solution would have been to pick up the remnants of the old Ricochet system for a few thousand dollars. Parking meters dont need more than 12k (if that!) of data, so even Ricochets 128k would have been overkill. That equipment is literally sitting unused in a few cities (unless it was sold for junk), and Houston might even have been paid to take it away! Dont get me wrong, I am not actually suggesting they do that but it is a much more cost effective alternative to this wifi mess they have created.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by R4M0N:said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. Are City governments not allowed to spend their tax revenues? Would you and WiFi4Milez like them to just put it in the bank and never use it? Here's a wild idea, they could refund it to the people who paid it in the first place. You know, charge less taxes.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
Why deploy something obsolete and spend the money on deployment (where most of the costs are) and on hardware it may be impossible to service/maintain in the future, with no other upside.
This project has potential. First, how much savings will be realized from not having meter readers, and 2ndly, the network could be expanded to include other uses, so it has a future potential.
Most of the expenses are in the deployment and build out stage, which would of required similar effort and labor for deploying the obsolete system or this one.
Personally I don't see a huge downside to this. Also the city is taking the "Let's see how the free access works out" line of thinking. If it doesn't work out, it stops.
I don't see the huge potential for waste and loss here.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | reply to wifi4milez
Wow, that theory involves quite a few presumptions. You sipping a beer while preaching from your armchair over there in Tulsa? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to texans20
Thats unamerican. |
|
| reply to texans20
said by texans20:Here's a wild idea, they could refund it to the people who paid it in the first place. You know, charge less taxes. The only taxes Houston has is sales tax and property tax. Putting $5 million back into that will in no way reduce your sales tax and Houston has already been talking about lowering property tax before this came up. The money was already allocated to the project long before they decided to make a WAP out of it. If you think about about they are already giving back by opening up the network to the public. |
|
