Can I just take a second to reflect on how much cooler BT is than any of the US local exchange carriers? I dont just say that as a former employee. BT have grasped the bull by the horns and adopted Wi-Fi, IPTV, VoIP, UNE and other technological advances that challenge their core revenue.

Now, if only BT would reduce the insane pricing on OpenZone.

Hours after New Orleans officials announced Tuesday that they would deploy a city-owned, wireless Internet network in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, regional phone giant BellSouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate one of its damaged buildings that would have housed new police headquarters, city officials said yesterday.

“Our willingness to work with the mayor and the city is still on the table,” Battcher said. “We’ve been working for over two months on this building . . . we are a little surprised by these comments.

Ive been really down on the RBOCs as of late, particularly in their comments regarding network neutrality and their efforts to counter municipal Wi-Fi. Granted the RBOCs have deserved the criticism, but I am going to give BellSouth the benefit of the doubt on this one. I can think of any number of reasons why there may be a delay or hiccups in the handover of a facility (many involving things like legal liability for a potentially damaged facility). I can see where someone within the city government might have come to the wrong conclusion about the reasons behind that delay. I am finding it hard to believe that a business leader or company would risk the bad PR by being such a complete asshole in a situation like this. This is particularly so for executives and a company operating within such a disaster situation. Bad PR aside, Ive got to believe a sense of humanity trumps the profit motive in situations like this.

I may have to eat my own words about Google not being willing to deploy ubiquitous Wi-Fi coverage, which is one of the recurring rumors related to Googles recent lease of dark fiber and launch of their Secure VPN for Wi-Fi software. I took some issue with the conclusion that the dark fiber network should lead one to conclude a push for Wi-Fi ubiquity from Google based on the complications and expense of deploying access points and purchasing the last mile connectivity to those access points. I stand by the supposition that this would be a pain for Google, but active participation in municipal Wi-Fi efforts really does turn this issue on its side. By getting municipalities to pony up the rights of way on lampposts and whatnot as well as effectively pay Google for the privilege of taking on the role of deploying access points and last mile connectivity, all of a sudden this is looking like a strategy Google could pursue.

The beauty part of this both for Google and municipalities is that Google can separate the ad revenue from Wi-Fi access through the VPN software offering. By making the VPN software optional to accessing the Wi-Fi network, Google frees the municipalities from being concerned about Google receiving ad revenue from a network built on a municipal contract. The great thing for consumers is that Googles network is most likely going to be required to offer non-discriminatory access to users of other security and other value-added Wi-Fi access software. I would suspect that those approving municipal contracts would look to prevent Google from getting an advantage from vertical integration with the underlying infrastructure built on a municipal contract (at leas they SHOULD). We should expect the value-added Wi-Fi software space bloom in a few years with competing companies looking to provide all kinds of functionality above and beyond simple Wi-Fi connectivity and offering customers a number of business models.

One issue that made me a big fan of Googles VPN software was the ability of this service to offer an important security function to Wi-Fi. I said something to the affect that companies offering traditional broadband (mostly the Bells and cable companies) should be kicking themselves. Google taking an active role in municipal Wi-Fi networks should keep executives at these companies awake at night. I hope the executives at the Bell and cable companies can recognize that a very savvy competitor has just entered their space. If Google succeeds with this strategy, they are going to eat your breakfast, lunch and dinner.

The usual arguments against free muni Wi-Fi are trotted out. It’s not that these arguments don’t have a degree of validity to them. However, with an area repleat with opportunities for al fresco computing, it surprises me somewhat that for-fee Wi-Fi services aren’t more prevelant than they are. It also surprises me somewhat that neighborhood associations don’t offer Wi-Fi to bring the latte set in to surf while they sit. I know I make an effort to frequent the establishments that offer me free Wi-Fi that works.

My votes for great spots to surf for free, which also happen to be great spots for cafinated drinks, are Greenberry’s in the Home Depot shopping center in Reston and Cyber Stop on 17th street (between P and Church Streets) in Washington.

I really think Verizon come out with some egg on their face in this one, and I say that as someone who is a strong advocate for free markets. City leaders in Philadelphia are struggling to a certain extent with economic development of their population, and the digital divide is a huge element of that development in today’s world. City leaders are right to step in and provide broadband infrastructure to their constituents when private companies either cannot or will not do it themselves. In this case Wi-Fi simply gives the city a cheap and easy way to provide basic infrastructure.

Verizon wasn’t going to do anything of the kind. We’ve seen incumbent carriers and cable companies refrain from deploying broadband facilities in locales where the market wasn’t there for a commercial service. They’re in business to make a profit for their shareholders, so that’s all fine and good. But the managers of the city are elected or appointed to serve even those people who are underserved by commercial services. If the taxpayers of Philly feel adequately served by these individuals, such that they’re re-elected to office, then that’s a vote of confidence that tax dollars are well spent on deploying broadband to serve under-served populations. Competing with commercial businesses may not be considered an appropriate use of tax dollars, but economic development certainly is. Its time telecommunications providers of all stripes (yes, this means YOU, too, Mr. Cable Company Guy) realized that the broadband services they deliver have quickly become necessary life blood for an information nation. Simply deciding an area is not economically viable for your service isnt the end of the concern for those who live there. If commercial leaders are not going to take on a roll, then what other choice do they leave municipal leaders? Once commercial operations walk away from an area, economic development becomes one of those externalities for which governments can and should be held responsible.

Verizon are showing that they’re missing the point on the value of broadband to customers who do pay for commercial services. Regarding free municipal Wi-Fi as a challenger to your commercial broadband offering is setting the bar REALLY low for your own service. Free Wi-Fi is, by its very nature, going to have spotty coverage, many points of congestion and a complete lack of security. Verizon and other providers have real competitive advantages over plain, muni Wi-Fi that should allow them to compete. Guaranteed levels of performance, reliability, security and bundled services such as e-mail are just a few competitive advantages commercial broadband will have. Verizon could even turn the situation around and to their advantage by offering value-added IPSec virtual private network (VPN) clients to their DSL subscribers in Philly so that they can use the muni Wi-Fi when they’re out and about with an added touch of security the general public won’t have.