WIRELESS IS RAPIDLY becoming the access technology of choice for municipal networks, as cities and towns begin to realize the advantages of using technology that can be rapidly deployed at lower cost, providing potentially ubiquitous coverage. In the process, wireless technology is changing the dynamics of the arguments for and against municipally owned networks.

The wireless networks being planned today look very similar to the networks built by wireless service providers. They use fiber-optic facilities for backhaul, either capitalizing on a utility company's fiber, when that entity is owned by the local government, or using metro fiber networks that were built in many municipalities in the '90s.

By using wireless access, muni nets can avoid the expensive proposition of connecting individual buildings — office or residential — and can provide Internet access in open spaces such as plazas and parks. Initially, these projects are using Wi-Fi technology, but as WiMAX gear becomes commercially available and affordable, it, too, will become part of the mix.

Wireless access also enables applications such as public safety — controlling traffic signals, wiring emergency vehicles — automated meter reading, data communications for field workers and more. Municipalities that extend that access to underserved areas and work to provide not only computer technology, but training and relevant applications, stand to create a more educated, informed and connected population.

And as smarter cities are finding out, these networks don't have to tax the local budget. Business models are emerging that either justify the use of city money spent to build wireless networks with new efficiencies for city workers and operations or invite a private service provider to build and operate a network that then sells wireless services to the municipal government for the same functions. Corpus Christi, Texas, is a current example of the former business model, and the new network being trialed next month in Minneapolis is a good sample of the latter.

Initially, these networks will compete with free hot spots — unless they are integrated into the muni network — and with companies selling data services to homes and small and medium-sized businesses. Networks built to support public-safety applications will have the built-in reliability to satisfy business needs, although early on, the access bandwidth will be limited.

The next logical step, however, is for these municipal networks to offer voice over IP, at which point they start to directly compete with both wireless and wireline operators.

The natural tendency of service providers has been to fight municipalities, on the grounds that they are using public money to compete with private enterprise. Multiple bills now before Congress would either prohibit municipalities from building telecom networks or make the process so onerous as to be virtually prohibitive.

In the meantime, however, a small group of service providers is working with municipal officials to develop business and technology plans that make public/private partnerships beneficial to both sides.

The question service providers must address is whether to place all their bets on the power of political muscle, when municipalities are increasingly able to show the twin benefits of better government and better quality of life that ubiquitous broadband access can provide. It's more than a little counter-intuitive to argue against a wireless technology that can deliver more efficient government services and provide broadband service in places where incumbents don't go today.