Not so hotspots

NET RESULTS:The classic internet business model of providing a free service funded through advertising revenues has been a boon for consumers. That, of course, has led to a massive backlash against anybody who has the temerity to try and charge for a product or service that the net crowd, in its wisdom, has decided should be free.

The latest internet freebie is access to the network itself, or more particularly, wireless internet access in public spaces.

Hotspots in cafes have been commonplace for many years now and the Starbucks chain in particular has been extremely successful in marketing itself as a laptop-friendly location.

Local governments have also decided to get in on the act and so-called "municipal Wi-Fi" is seen as something that can encourage investment and attract tourists to a town or city. (Quite who would choose a holiday location on the basis of free Wi-Fi is another matter.)

The sexy combination of Google and San Francisco put the idea of free citywide Wi-Fi on the agenda last year and last January Dublin City Council got in on the act by appointing consultants to look at the feasibility of a similar scheme in Dublin which would cost anywhere between €12 and €20 million.

If you look behind the hype of the "Google brings free Wi-Fi to San Francisco" headlines, things are not quite so simple. Google and its partner Earthlink were proposing a two-tiered system where basic slow access would be free but users would have to pay for fast access.

Concerns were also expressed over what data Google would be collecting on usage by individuals.

Last month Dublin City Council reined in its initial proposal and is now planning a €2 million pilot in Ballyfermot, Ballymun and the south city centre. However, it faces possible censure from the EU who recently ruled a similar project in Prague was unfair to commercial providers.

Do they seriously think people are going to ditch their home broadband connections in favour of perching themselves on their windowsill or a park bench to avail of the city's free service of dubious quality?

Clearly the EU mandarins have never needed to check or send an urgent e-mail while travelling around Europe. That's the kind of casual and occasional use that hotspots receive. Sure there are notable exceptions, such as celebrity blogger Perez Hilton whose "office" is a Hollywood cafe with wireless internet on tap.

Irish broadband operators seem to have a more intelligent response, with Digiweb for one welcoming the Dublin proposals. They agreed with Dublin City councillors who have suggested that anything that increases internet usage amongst the general populous should be welcomed by the industry.

The demand for free Wi-Fi is being driven by the ridiculously high prices currently being charged by commercial providers.

Charges of €10-€18 an hour are commonplace both in the Republic and other parts of Europe.

Those willing to pay such extortionate charges find that more often than not even in premises plastered with stickers advertising these services it is virtually impossible to purchase a voucher for casual use. Dublin airport is a classic example of the phenomenon.

Advertising-supported models seem to be the way to enable local authorities to provide free or subsidised wireless access.

An Irish firm, free-hotspot.com, is currently rolling out a network of free hotspots around Europe in commercial premises. By displaying an ad before users get online, the majority of costs are defrayed and there's no need for vouchers or any other billing infrastructure.

Grassroots efforts are also starting to fill the gaps. Community-based Fon is spreading out across Europe from its Spanish base. By installing Fon's router on the end of your broadband connection you provide access to other members of the community who are in reach of your hotspot.

In exchange you get free access at thousands of Fon hotpots around the world.

Which begs the question - why should local governments foot the bill for expensive Wi-Fi infrastructure? Advocates' claims that municipal Wi-Fi is akin to some digital age rural electrification scheme and that ubiquitous access is essential in the 21st century.

But last time I checked all but the most vulnerable in society are expected to pay for electricity.

What is the point in providing free Wi-Fi in the urban areas that are already well-served by broadband?

Such grand schemes are just being paid for by the taxpayer. Even on the internet, there's no such thing as a free lunch.