Opinion: There's no such thing as free metro Wi-Fi

Computerworld - My father, whose politics tended toward the conservative end of the scale, once showed me a bumper sticker that simply said "TINSTAAFL". It was the '60's, so I assumed this was a South African word promoting one position or another from that troubled part of the world, or some such.

He later explained that it stood for "there is no such thing as a free lunch." While my politics differed over time from my father's, I still appreciate the sentiment embodied in this acronym.

After all, while the air and beautiful sunsets are, indeed, free, the idea that something tangible could be truly free is almost never found in the economics of the industrialized world. The whole idea of value-add, by definition, implies associated cost. And while the owner of an item or service might choose to give it away without charge, this is rarely possible on a sustained basis.

Yes, the private sector can get away with "free," at least on a temporary basis, in the form of loss leaders and such. However, I think we need to draw the line when it comes to government-sponsored services, particularly metro-scale, public-access Wi-Fi.

I should probably mention that I am a former member of the board of selectmen in my town. For those of you who are not from New England, a board of selectmen is similar to a city council. I am one of the authors of my town's telecommunications ordinance, which basically creates a level playing field for all players. While in office, I pursued a policy of letting the private sector worry about telecommunications while we worried about picking up the trash and running the schools. And we could barely accomplish those tasks with the resources we had; dealing with failed Skype connections at 4 a.m. was truly beyond our capabilities.

But mostly I objected to government getting involved in what should be the province of the private sector and the (admittedly flawed) competitive free market. Sure, it's enticing to think that a wireless telecommunications service, and broadband at that, could be made available for free. But since base stations and network management systems and such are clearly not free, what we're really talking about here is whether one group of residents (and usually visitors) should be forced to pay more in taxes or fees so that others can pay less or, if the system is truly free, nothing.

But why should Wi-Fi be free, anyway? Telephone service, wired or wireless, isn't free. Cable broadband and DSL aren't free. Other forms of broadband, delivered by terrestrial microwave and satellites, aren't free. Why should Wi-Fi be free, especially considering that "free" means that someone else is paying?