Total Cost of Ownership – TCO – is a great throwaway phrase. In the context of city-wide communications networks (wireless or otherwise), we need to know what we are really paying (collectively) and what we really “own”.
First and foremost: Let it really be about ownership and not rents.
Cities are buying the meaningless phraseology of public-private partnership hook line and sinker. We’re so afraid of our shadows we can’t make a proper public investment in anything, anymore.
Most cities foreclose a host of business/ownership models before fully determining the purposes they want their network to serve.
This is backwards. It makes no sense.
But the question here is dollars and cents. Why are we so afraid to invest?
Our nation was built in a series of major public investments.
Is the problem public innumeracy? How often does the phrase no public dollars get uttered in the context of city-wide networks?
In terms of public dollars being spent (or not), there are two points to consider:
- will the city buy services on this network?
- how much will the general public be spending on network services?
Clearly, if the city makes significant use of a network it doesn’t own and there is no competition to speak of, tax-payers are supporting the network. If tax-payers are going to support the network, will they be well served by the network?
Would the public be better served under a model of municipal or non-profit ownership than under a vendor driven model? Would it not be cheaper in the long-run and in the aggregate for tax-payers or rate-payers to buy into a true muni or community model?
Perhaps the biggest question is this: if our civic leaders are so gung-ho about business models, shouldn’t we apply the proven experience of the sharper business minds? Big business knows what makes financial sense: if you can afford to buy your own network, you build/buy it. You don’t rent (for long).