cities

Reflections
Critics of the project argue that security is often lacking, and the systems do not protect children from harmful
content. However, access at FIZs in Tshwane is designed to limit abuse and does not allow users access to
harmful content such as pornography and alcohol (Alfreds, 2013).
Initiatives such as this “may be the start of something big if municipalities outside of South Africa can demonstrate
that they have both the ambition and the competence to carry through private-public developments of this
kind”. However there are some areas for caution. International evidence on the success or not of municipal or
city-wide Wi-Fi is not clear. In many cities in the US such initiatives have either proved extremely expensive or
been deemed to be a failure. Examples include Portland, where the city had to pay to remove abandoned
antennas left by its partner. Dubbed the “city-wide Wi-Fi implosion” by the Economist in 2013, only three large
scale ventures emerged, the largest being in Minneapolis, where the city signed a 10-year, $12.5m contract with
a private firm, USI Wireless that started being paid out at 10% each year long before the city could use the
network’s services. In Seattle, Wi-Fi was provided in 2005 and stopped in 2012 when authorities concluded that
Wi-Fi was not necessarily a workable and cheaper way to get more people online as much of the network had
to be replaces every 5–7 years. In addition, technical issues and geography created problems for city-wide Wi-Fi.
Other challenges have included interference issues, network abusers, security and competition.
Challenges have been experienced internationally around payment for Wi-Fi such as this in that, while it might
be free to the individual user, the city collectively usually has to pay, meaning higher taxes in some form.
However, in New York City the proposed project will cost about $200 million, although officials said that this
involves a consortium of companies sharing advertising revenue with the city, and that no taxpayer money
would be used for construction. Some cities in the United States such as Philadelphia and San Francisco
announced PPPs, giving the right to a private company to build a wireless network, and charge for access,
often thereby relinquishing control over costs to a private company.
Critics of Tshwane’s initiative maintain that the funds would be better spent on infrastructure and services like
roads, water and electricity, and that in the long run this will not prove to be free, but will require all residents
to pay. However, the question to be asked is whether we can afford to wait until all basic services are addressed
before providing such a service? It does not need to be an either/or situation – either basic services or
technological advancement. The Mayor of Tshwane has suggested that “access to connectivity must be viewed
as a basic human right, analogous to the provision of basic services such as water and electricity. We have
made tremendous progress in closing the digital divide and expanding internet connectivity.” This is in line
with the “commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society”
under the auspices of the UN expressed at the World Summit on the Information Society.
Other concerns include the list of priorities for the Municipality, with some arguing that internet access should
be further down on this list, after issues such as access to water and electricity. However, the project argues
that free Wi-Fi is more critical for the development of the residents of Tshwane, noting that the network costs
R1/GB, 1000 times cheaper than 3G from one of the country’s major mobile network providers.
Looking forward
Our perspective is that access to connectivity must be viewed as a basic human right, analogous to the
provision of basic services such as water and electricity. We have made tremendous progress in closing
the digital divide and expanding internet connectivity.
(Executive Mayor, City of Tshwane).
380 State of South African Cities Report 2016