 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Not too bad $25 per person isn't all that bad. Certainly not enough to make pro-muni folks defensive, I wouldn't think. But how many government programs come in on time and under budget? | |
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Am I confused "According to a new study by Jupiter Research, the average cost of building and maintaining a municipal wireless network is $150,000 per square mile, with most towns and cities needing to charge $25 per subscriber to make the financials work."
That is not what the report says. The report says:
»www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/r···rch.html
quote:
According to the report, roughly 50% of current initiatives will fail to breakeven even if the benefit of the initiative is assumed to be $25 per user per month.
They are not saying that most will fail if they charge $25 a month, they are saying that if you assume that each user receives $25 of benefit each month, then half of the projects will not break even. That is not the same as charging each user $25 per month, since it avoids supply-demand issues related to price. | |
|  | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Am I confused You're correct. I've changed it and included the direct quote from the press release. | |
| 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| $100,000 a bit pricey A $100K a square mile's a lot of money to spend for a city (Philadelphia) that can't educate it's children without the intervention of the state, and talks about closing firehouses on a yearly basis.
What's the point of having broadband if your laptop is smoldering trash???
I have nothing against muni projects per se, and I see a genuine need for it in a lot of areas. Neither am I dismissing the service this could bring to the poorer areas of the city, I'm simply asking myself why a city that constantly pisses and moans they don't have enough money to sustain basic social services is getting into the business of running a broadband network... | |
| | 
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: $100,000 a bit pricey Have to agree with you there Wacoyle. While I think that it's onerous for Verizon to hijack state legislation, and while it'd be nice to have citywide wi-fi, it'd be even nicer to not have a gaping hole in South Street bridge. 
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
| | | 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
 ·Comcast
| Re: $100,000 a bit pricey On the other token it would be nice to stay on the 8th floor of the Hyatt Regency and not having to pay extra $10 per day for i-net access 
I assume they include the rights to position the access points, the wired infrastructure (signal, power), network access, operation and maintenance.
Yep, pricey... On the other side if say 20 people share their $50 a month cable connection to cover that square mile, that's only $1000 a month... What am I missing? | |
| | | |
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| Re: $100,000 a bit pricey Well, at 300 feet range (424 feet square), one needs more like 155 APs to cover a square mile (5280 feet per mile) * $50 a month that's $7750 a month, times 60 months (5 years) that's $465,000.
So maybe the muni solution is cheaper  | |
| | 
jbkinstl
@swbell.ne
| Even if you use Jupiter Research's figure of $150,000 per square mile over five years, that works out to $30,000 per square mile per year. There could easily be 3,000 people living within a square mile in an urban area. That works out to $10/year/person, which is less than $1/month/person.
So, how many people will actually subscribe in order to calculate the cost per subscriber? At a cost of less than $1/month I don't think there should be a subscription fee. The cost of the fee collection and administration wouldn't make it worth while. Would a 50% subscription rate for free broadband wireless be feasible? What would the value to the community be for that? | |
| Segman
join:2001-11-15
Santa Ana, CA | Study was paid for by Cable companies so cities would not be inclined to put in their own Wi-Fi.
Anyone who knows anything about this knows the costs are much lower. | |
| | Dubious8
join:2005-08-10
Sugar Land, TX
| Re: Study was paid for by Segman, Cable companies did not pay for this study. Anyone who wants to see it has to pay for it. JupiterResearch is not a think tank funded by industry players -- it lives and dies on the accuracy of its research, for which it has a solid reputation.
The Jupiter Research report, as well as the Yankee Group report issued in May (also trashed by some "true believers") are not knee-jerk anti-muni and actually offer roadmaps to successful municipal deployments. They offer sound advice if you were just smart enough to see it.
I'm no fan of municipal networks, and in the long run I do think they are money pits that financially strapped cites can ill afford. Saying so makes me a "sock puppet."
But I guess if Jupiter's in the same fold, it's not bad company. Stupid, ignorant remarks like yours, which reveal the blind fanaticism of municipal wireless supporters and their utter intolerance for any challenge to the economic premises behind their "government-wi-fi-for-all" doctrine, works better than any number of pages of think tank analysis. Go ahead, Segman, keep ranting. Make my day! | |
| 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | huh? Study sez: "... even if the benefit of the initiative is assumed to be $25 per user per month"
Even if? Bullocks!
I pay 60$/mo for Adelphia internet-only connectivity over old, oxidized, TV coax. How the eff is the suggestion of 25$/mo outrageous? I'd happily pay half-again that for burried fiber connectivity-only from a muni that employs people in my town and doesn't try to bundle heaven & earth into the deal. I know this particular example is aimed at wireless, but that's only because wireless happens to be the perceived muni-threat of the moment: they play the same fear mongering, mis-info game when buried fiber is the threat.
The biggest bitch of private sector connectivity is I cannot buy it without buying something else from that company and the money all leaves my town, my county, my state, and even my country. I'm not an anti-globalists, but if my money is going to leave my community then I want a product-benefit for it, not a product-penalty. | |
| | | |
|
|
Jupiter: Muni Wi-Fi Pricey