The Instigator
michael7767
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RavenousTurtle
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should free public Wi-Fi offered in cities

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,274 times Debate No: 33404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

michael7767

Pro

Free public Wi-Fi should be offered in cities. Why you ask? First off, the city/cities could earn money from ads on websites. People could be constantly connected to the internet, removing some worry of missing things about work and school. Kids who have online homework don't need to worry about not getting homework complete because they don't have Wi-Fi, since it would be city-wide. Another way it could earn the city money, is that more people can start small businesses, which would cause them to pay more taxes, increasing the tax revenue. It also wouldn't cause any security risks, because people could still own a private router for there own homes, just placing the free public Wi-Fi as a secondary option for non-essential devices. It would be the same for things like large businesses, they would own there own routers.
RavenousTurtle

Con

I'd first like to thank Michael for initiating this debate.

As for format, I will be offering my own case and then respond to my opponents' arguments (unless I can clearly cross-apply points).

Contention 1: Cost
A) Cost
My opponent ignores the high cost for public wi-fi. If in-home wifi costs ~$30. We can see that this means to apply this to an entire city would cost quite a bit of money.
B) No revenue
There will be no revenue gained from this expenditure. My opponent cites that the city would make money based off of ads but this has a few problems:
i. The state cannot endorse a private product
ii. Ads only produce revenue for a website (e.g. AT&T doesn't make money when you surf the web)
iii. Internet providers earn revenue from providing the service, hiring contractors to install wi-fi costs the city

Contention 2: Wi-fi is a private service
A) Damage to business
My opponent claims that in their world there will be a public and private system working in unison. This means the public option will either be too bad to be worth the cost to the public, or if the speed and connection is good then the private industry will be slaughtered.
B) Tax
The government has no obligation to ensure convenience. This means our citizens would be being used as a means to an end. The government has to respect our right to property.

Contention 3: Little effect
Pro claims that the benefits will be numerous (constantly connected to the internet). The problem here is that we already are. Over half of our population already uses smartphones (3g/4g would probably be faster than a minimum strength city wi-fi service, see C2A).

Now to respond to my opponent's claims.

Claim: Schoolwork ideas
Response: Few Children have this problem today. Children in elementary schools don't use laptops or tablets. When this is the case, it is almost always at some private schools, in this case the wi-fi is provided by the school. Most children don't have too much time on their hands in which they'd have their laptop on them, the only scenario that comes to mind is when a child is waiting for a bus or parent to pick them up. First, they're unlikely to have the laptop on them. Second, socializing is good for development.
As for teens, most teens have smartphones, not to mention it can be healthy not to obsess over homework at every given second.

Claim: More small business
Response: Simply false.
A) City wi-fi would be poor in speed (see C2A), a small business needs decent wi-fi
B) The cost of wi-fi is actually pretty cheap when you're talking business terms. The cost per month of wi-fi would be only a few hours of minimum wage labor.

Claim: Earning revenue
Response: See my C1

So, in conclusion, city wi-fi would cost a lot of money (which is unjust to take) for little to no effect.
Debate Round No. 1
michael7767

Pro

michael7767 forfeited this round.
RavenousTurtle

Con

Forfeit so vote con
Debate Round No. 2
michael7767

Pro

michael7767 forfeited this round.
RavenousTurtle

Con

Forfeit so extend and vote con
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.