KEY POINTS:
UNITED STATES - In February this year the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, announced that America's second largest city would build a wireless internet network, or Wi-Fi, that would blanket the 1290sq km megalopolis by 2009.
The city's four million inhabitants would be able to surf the internet free. It is a populist, democratic vision that promises hi-tech utopia, with uninterrupted high-speed access from home, work, even from parks or bus shelters.
"With LA Wi-Fi, we are dedicating ourselves to the idea that universal access to technology makes our entire economy stronger,"said the mayor. Crossing the digital divide - connecting poor families to the internet for the first time - would also harness untapped potential.
The city plans to install thousands of transmitters on telephone poles - publicly owned by the Department of Water and Power, America's largest utility - with an as yet unannounced private partner. "We're hoping to do it for the minimal amount of city dollars,"says Councilman Tony Cardenas, who chairs the city's technology committee.
Other municipal Wi-Fi networks, or "muni Wi-Fi's", average US$75,000 ($101,909) to US$125,000 per 2.6sq km, which would budget LA's wireless scheme at between US$37 million and US$62 million. Others calculate a US$40-a-home cost, about US$54 million in total. Cardenas says it will cost "tens of millions" of dollars.
Cardenas envisages a wired city that will connect entrepreneurs to a globalised world - despite outsourcing LA remains a major manufacturing centre - and provide kids with a better shot at getting a decent education. "I think with Wi-Fi we'll make LA a better place for our constituents."
For New Zealanders exasperated by Telecom's pitiful bid to usher in the broadband era, there might seem much to envy.
But the way to hi-tech utopia is not always paved with gigabytes. LA isn't the first city to attempt such a switch, although it is the largest. Houston, which announced its free Wi-Fi plan on the same day as LA, will partner internet service provider Earthlink to cover 1554sq km, but has two million fewer inhabitants.
LA is currently seeking a business partner. Given that the city wants a free Wi-Fi service, any investor will have to find revenue elsewhere, maybe from advertising.
"I guess the devil would be in the details, to see where the opportunities are," muses Patti Rockenwagner, a spokeswoman for Time Warner, one of the city's three major [the others are Verizon and AT&T] broadband internet providers.
"There's a huge amount of infrastructure you need to invest in," says Verizon spokesman Jonathan Davies, "and there may be new technology next year."
Yet, while they strike a cautionary note about the most cost-effective equipment, in an industry where rapid change is constant, the telecom giants seem resigned to some sort of free internet access.
This wasn't always so. Two years ago, as other cities like San Francisco and Philadelphia announced free Wi-Fi networks, the cable TV and telephone providers - which had invested billions in fibre optic or cable links - fought a bitter rearguard campaign in Congress and the media.
They had as much luck as King Canute. Today over 300 other US municipalities offer Wi-Fi, along with thousands of "hotspots" in cafes, libraries, bookshops, universities and airports.
Although 27 per cent of Americans still lack any internet access, broadband is now considered basic infrastructure in the US and many other nations.
Ironically, America's biggest Wi-Fi network is found in the high desert at Hermiston, Oregon, where a 1813sq km grid was running by 2005 to aid the authorities in an emergency if stored chemical weapons leak. Jiwire, America's largest Wi-Fi directory, lists 141,923 hotspots in 132 countries.
Still, there are many obstacles in a major city. San Francisco announced its plans in 2004, and has partnered with Google and Earthlink to offer the city a fast Wi-Fi version for US$21.95 a month and a free slower network.
Google hopes to profit from advertising that will appear on users' screens. The council has yet to approve the network.
Part of the problem is technical: it may be easy to receive a wireless signal in a city as flat as Houston, but in more topographical challenged urban centres, like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where numerous seismic fault lines have created mountainous terrain, it presents unique problems.
Other wireless technologies, including cordless phones and garage-door openers, may also cause interference.
As the New York Times noted recently, while some billion people [out of six billion in the world, one billion of whom are already online] live close to an internet gateway, many suffer from "the last mile" problem. Wi-Fi signals, which use unlicensed bands on the US radio wavelength and are legally restricted to low-power transmitters, are often weak, sometimes unable to penetrate the walls of houses.
Will muni Wi-Fi, using transmitters atop LA's telegraph poles, do the job? Elsewhere in LA County muni Wi-Fis are less ambitious. Culver City, for instance, contents itself to wireless coverage in the downtown area.
There are solutions. A long-range system known as Wi-Max can boost signals, yet may be too expensive.
Other low-cost "mesh networks," that send a wireless signal from inside a house, instead of from outside in, have yet to be marketed.
But free public Wi-Fi may by characterised by slower access speeds than users expect from private companies, which constantly update technology to stay competitive.
And then there's privacy. Humphrey Cheung, a senior editor with TGDaily.com, explains how he sat in a Starbucks, opened his laptop and, using the cafe's Wi-Fi, quickly accessed web pages visited, and emails sent, by other customers. Unless emails were encrypted, which major ISPs do, he could read them.
Cheung was using a "sniffer" programme, downloaded free from the internet and installed on his computer. "As long as you're aware of the risks it's not a big deal," he said. "But computers sometimes connect to the strongest wireless signal. They might automatically connect to LA's city Wi-Fi, which might be unencrypted." In short, caveat emptor.
Alternatively, LA might provide its inhabitants with an access code.
But groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union are concerned about more sinister drawbacks.
Addressing San Francisco's project, they wonder if the authorities might pressure Google into revealing details of users' web activities. Could the dream of bringing LA's poorer communities into the digital era have a dark side?
"It's not just about email," says Lee Tien, a senior lawyer with the EFF, who cautions that government run Wi-Fi may raise anonymity issues - particularly if users are barred from using pseudonyms - or threaten the right to association.
Then there's data mining, where individuals or groups are tracked online by law enforcement.
It's like browsing library books, with one key difference, says Tien. Browsing library books leaves no record, unless you check them out.
Internet surfing leaves a cyber footprint.
What if you glanced at anti-government material? Might this be construed as suspicious by the authorities?
So enfranchising LA's poor may jeopardise civil liberties? "That's the risk. It depends on what they do. But the risk is created when the city becomes their primary ISP."
Still, in a city that is a mecca for visionaries, Cardenas is bullish.
"It's a challenge. We're going where no other city has gone," he says. "But it could even be finished next year." Meanwhile, his door is open to anyone who comes up with a winning plan. "I'm looking forward to some very, very dynamic proposals."
