WASHINGTON-Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell (D) has yet to signal whether he will sign or veto a bill some critics fear will undermine Philadelphia’s planned Wi-Fi rollout. However, there is a possibility Rendell will direct city officials, telecom carriers and other stakeholders to work out a compromise on a controversy with implications for other municipalities anxious to bring broadband to low-income neighborhoods, while threatening established service providers in the process.
“The governor hasn’t decided. He’s still reviewing the bill,” said Kate Philips, spokeswoman for Rendell.
Rendell has until Nov. 30 to veto the legislation.
The bill at issue includes a provision banning Philadelphia and other localities from collecting fees for Wi-Fi services. However, a grandfather clause added shortly before the measure’s passage Nov. 19 would exempt Philadelphia or any other community from the fee prohibition if a single paid subscriber is put on a broadband system by Jan. 1, 2006.
But Philadelphia officials, needing to secure financing and to manage the procurement process, say summer 2006 is the soonest the city’s Wi-Fi network could be operational.
“It [the fee-ban provision] severely limits our options. It does not kill the project,” said Dianah Neff, chief information officer of Philadelphia.
Neff said Philadelphia is not trying to compete with Verizon Communications Inc. or other telecom companies that back the far-ranging bill designed to foster broadband deployment in the state.
At the same time, it appears Philadelphia intends to price Wi-Fi far below the $30- to $60-a-month fee levied by telephone companies and cable TV operators for broadband service, or the $80 monthly cost of Verizon Wireless’ EV-DO service.
Neff said the Wi-Fi project will cost $10 million and $1.5 million a year to maintain wireless hot spots.
“It’s much bigger than Philadelphia and Pennsylvania,” said Neff, noting that regional Bell telephone companies and other telecom firms are making headway in at least 11 states to limit the ability of local governments to offer Wi-Fi as a means of bridging the Digital Divide. The term refers to those who have and do not have access to high-speed Internet service in the United States.
Neff said she believes Gov. Rendell wants the warring parties to find common ground, conceding that the governor likes other parts of the bill.
“Municipalities are competitors. But we are not against competition as long as competitors are governed by the same set of rules,” said Sharon Shaffer, a Verizon spokeswoman. Verizon offers high-speed wireline and wireless broadband services.
Shaffer said the bill will promote economic development in the state and blames Philadelphia for creating a major stir at the 11th hour. “I think they have fear or lack of understanding of what the House bill means.”
“I find the legislation disappointing at this delicate state of [Philadelphia Wi-Fi] planning,” said Alan Shark, executive director of Public Technology Inc., a nonprofit group that promotes high technology for local governments. “The players who are opposing this are not providing low-cost alternatives for broadband deployment.”
The emerging trend of cities setting up Wi-Fi networks raises interesting legal questions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that states-in this case, Missouri-can prohibit local governments from providing telecommunications services. But the high court’s ruling did not necessarily preclude such cities from offering the type of Wi-Fi services that Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dayton, Ohio, and others are pursuing.
“It’s extraordinary that the Pennsylvania legislature would essentially hand over to the private sector the ability to determine whether, and under what circumstances, elected municipal officials can act in their own communities’ best interests,” said James Baller. Baller represented the Missouri Municipal League in the Supreme Court case and is counsel to other cities offering broadband services.
