I read a post on a blog that tracks trends related to technology today. Apparently Minneapolis will soon have a Wi-Fi network set up by the end of the month.

Currently, Minneapolis' approach seems to have the most legs. In this model, the city government and public-safety agencies act as anchor tenants guaranteeing the service provider, USI Wireless, a contract. In 2006, the city agreed to pay USI Wireless $1.25 million a year for 10 years to build and operate its network.

But USI Wireless is not relying entirely on the city to fund the network. The company is also offering service to residents and small businesses.

Since the site of the actual convention is at the Xcel Energy in St. Paul, this won't directly affect attendees and people who'd want WiFi (Hello, bloggers!) but there will be a myriad of parties, dinners and activities in Minneapolis and of course, the hotels there will be full, too so it could be of use to people on that 'side of town.'

I'm not sure if this move to put WiFi in Minneapolis is a business move related to the convention, but I do think the overall plan is a bit silly and, as a a friend and computer expert put it, "socialist." He said:

Why not free housing too?  Isn't that needed more than Wi-Fi?  Free cars.  Then look at any socialist country and look at their products.  They suck and so does city-wide Wi-Fi which is why it's failing in other cities. 

I tend to agree. If Twin Citians need anything, it's probably not Wi-Fi, so why put so much time and energy into something that may not work, and offer it for free? Perhaps the business model will develop further into some kind of plan where company subscribers pay a specific fee, that might make more sense. Otherwise, it seems like a lousy decision to me.

Anyone else have expertise in this area who can explain how this works and why it would benefit a free market economy or even, the city during the convention? Really, I'd like your opinion. You know where I am.