should cities provide wireless internet access?

I think about this every time I try to work on my computer on the El. Apparently CTA actually is going to install some sort of cell-phone service, which Chicagoist rightly slams (I don't just rehash Chicagoist posts, I swear).

Many people view government-provided wireless as inevitable, and some cities have already gotten in on the act. But telecommunications companies have cited the plans as anti-competitive or even illegal. The latest case has been in Philadelphia, where laws were amended to provide for municipal wireless service.

My first reaction was "cool!" But the wireless companies have a point -- everyone likes pizza, but the government doesn't open pizza parlors on every corner. So why wireless?

Well, there are a few obvious answers. Government should provide wireless where it already encourages internet use -- the library. Hot spots in parks and on public transportation are also clear choices, since private companies would have no reason to compete there. But I am skeptical that the "one big hot spot" idea would actually be useful. Presumably the proponents of these policies want to bridge "the digital divide." But the expensive part of wireless access isn't the signal -- it's the hardware. If the government has limited resources to spend on this sort of thing -- and what city doesn't? -- it might be more effective to improve internet access in libraries and fund programs that donate computers to the poor. City governments could also sponsor hot spots in poor neighborhoods, perhaps as part of an urban development program. It would be a great negotiating tool with companies like Verizon -- sure, we'll let you put cell phone towers here, but you have to provide free wireless to this poor community.

I'm still quite uncertain about this, tho... will anyone (perhaps a Philadelphian) make the case for all-city wireless?