It's hard to fault cities such as Philadelphia, Minneapolis and San Francisco for wanting to offer citizens ubiquitous Internet access via wireless networks — they are considerably cheaper and quicker to deploy than wired networks, thus able to reach more people. Conversely, it's hard to blame incumbent service providers for fighting such efforts, as they pose a direct threat to their ability to sell high-speed services, and without such revenues, the expensive infrastructure cable has built and telephone companies are building will not reap expected profits. Much of the highly charged rhetoric in the muni broadband battle ignores a couple of realities: First, broadband penetration in the U.S. lags China, Japan and Korea and is now falling behind much of Europe. Our position as a world technology leader is already threatened — the next Microsoft or Cisco is far more likely to be Asian or Scandinavian. Second, municipal networks don't represent a panacea or a slam dunk answer to broadband deficiency. Each should be evaluated on its own merits and carefully scrutinized for long-term feasibility and financial health. Issues such as long-term maintenance and system obsolescence should be tackled up front or municipalities with the best of intentions could produce the biggest of boondoggles.