Bridging the digital divide, Grant/White style!
Last week, the Chronicle's Alexis Grant ran a story on Mayor White's plan to get private companies to build a downtown wireless internet bubble that could eventually be expanded to cover the whole city.
Grant stresses that taxpayers won't be footing the bill, which is good news. But then she sells the mayor's plan (instead of merely reporting on it) as follows:
The project could help Houston bridge the digital divide between Internet haves and have-nots.
There may be benefits to the city of getting a private firm to build it a wireless network downtown, but bridging the "digital divide?" That's a bit over the top.
Here are other reasons as posited by Grant/White (it's really hard to tell the difference):
Houston's network, which could be installed starting as early as next year, is intended to foster economic development, help the city operate more effectively and give residents and business owners access to new, faster technology.
Mayor White wants a wireless network for city operations, and if he can get a private company to build it out at its expense AND offer access to others, that's all well and good. But is it really going to foster economic development? How? Examples?
And is it really going to give residence and business owners access to new, faster technology? Come on. You aren't going to see the Chronicle and Shell and Baker & Botts and other big downtown firms abandoning their internet pipes for Mayor White's new Downtown Internet Authority because it's cutting edge. That just isn't going to happen.
There's this fine bit of writing:
It's still in the preliminary stages: Companies will likely start bidding on the project in the next few months. And while the final contract needs City Council's approval to proceed, Mayor Bill White has been one of it's strongest supporters.
One wishes professional writers and their editors would catch those pesky errors in apostrophe usage.
We finally get to the point of the project:
The service would be free to city government, as well as Houstonians who bring their own laptops to select hotspots, such as large parks.
Mayor White gets a wireless network for the city, at no cost to taxpayers, and a few enthusiasts can pay what are likely to be high rates (taking as our example the public/private partnership responsible for wifi access at the city's airports) for service in areas other than libraries and hobo hangouts -- which isn't a bad deal for the city really, or for the wifi enthusiasts. Why can't we leave it at that (instead of deeming it an innovation as great as paved roads, like some enthusiasts)?
We turn back to bridging digital divides:
In homes and businesses, the connection would come with a price, but one that's likely to be more affordable than it is now. The monthly fee could be about $15 compared with the $30-50 residents pay now, Lewis said.
The story does point out that AT&T offers broadband service for as little as $13 per month, but Grant does not press any of the wifi-bubble utopians on the contention that broadband is $30-50 currently. Further, nobody presses the wifi-bubble utopians on their contention that this network will cost users $15 per month, when the cost to use wifi at the city's airports is more than that.
There's more poor writing/editing:
While some have criticized whether the city should become involved in such an endeavor, one expert said Houston is taking a step in the right direction.
And that's a wrap.
It's not quite as good as a press release from Mayor White, because his press shop usually edits its material a little more tightly, but we suppose the administration was nonetheless pleased with the uncritical coverage.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 03/13/06 10:13 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.