Technology news and Jobs
Fuzzy Logic
Free Wi-Fi is an idea that won’t fly
Fuzzy Logic
Free Wi-Fi is an idea that won’t fly | Free Wi-Fi is an idea that won’t fly |
|
|
| by Alex Zaharov-Reutt | |
| Saturday, 03 May 2008 | |
|
Page 1 of 2 Nothing worthwhile is ever free. There is always a catch. If you are being given a free lunch, what are you giving up in return, whether knowingly or unknowingly? The tech focus in late 2006 for the Australian state of New South Wales, our most populous, was a promise of free Wi-Fi for the CBDs (central business districts) of major cities, including the world famous city of Sydney. I wrote about it back then, strongly suggesting it was just a misguided plan to keep the masses happy, and one that would ultimately be abandoned. Of course, that is exactly what has happened. But Governments fool us this way again and again. And yet, we still believe them when they make more promises, voting them in time after time. When we’ve finally had enough, we vote in their opposition, who usually end up being just as useless, if not immediately, then not too long afterwards. Let us analyse once more what the NSW Minister for Commerce, Eric Roozedaal had to say in a statement that was quoted by AAP and printed by The Age. Roozendaal said: "What's clear from the EOI is that the market believes the delivery of free wireless broadband is not practical for the government at this current time, based on technical and financial grounds.” Given the fact that Wi-Fi has been around for years, and that free Wi-Fi schemes collapsed in the US long before the NSW government hatched its free Wi-Fi plan, why did the government need to even go through the charade of getting EOIs – expressions of interest – from companies? Apparently, the EOIs told the government something that should have been obvious: "Most schemes sponsored by overseas governments have collapsed and require further funding to the tune of tens of millions of US dollars. With technology changing so quickly I cannot expose NSW taxpayers to that sort of risk.” Who would have believed it? A government minister unwilling to expose his constituents to “risk”. That would have to be a first, surely? |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|

- 







