One consequence from the intrusion of wireless, Internet and other technologies into a space Bell telephone giants have comfortably occupied for the past century or so has to do with relationships, such as those between entrenched landline carriers and state-municipal governments.
I was enlightened about the subject at the Eighth Annual Midwestern Telecommunications & Technology Conference last week at Marquette University. I had the unenviable task of addressing the gathering on telecom-tech policy goings-on in the nation’s capital following a cantankerous panel on BadgerNet II, a five-year $116 million state communications contract awarded to a partnership headed by SBC Communications Inc. Given that all politics are local and thus far more interesting than humdrum Washington, I didn’t really bring the house down with my musings.
BadgerNet II, which is to replace a 10-year-old data and video network in Wisconsin, will connect state agencies, schools and universities. Full disclosure: My information on the controversy is gleaned in compressed time from private conversations with and public statements by stakeholders at the conference and from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporting.
Critics claim BadgerNet II, crafted over four years, is a technological anachronism that is bad for users and Wisconsin taxpayers. They complain BadgerNet II has no place for Voice over Internet Protocol and could end up costing lots more than its $116 million price tag.
Matthew Miszewski, chief information officer for the state of Wisconsin, said all the bellyaching is littered with misinformation, and dredging up the past is not productive.
When the contract was awarded last October, Gov. Jim Doyle (D) crowed that the new information technology network would save taxpayers $46 million. Opponents of the contract awarded to the Wisconsin BadgerNet Access Alliance-comprised of SBC Global Services, Norlight Telecommunications, Verizon Select Services, CenturyTel Service Group and the Wisconsin Independent Telecommunications Systems-reply that Doyle had no choice but to show some cost savings.
Whether the state made a bad call on the contract or it’s simply a case of sour grapes, the BadgerNet II brouhaha suggests a fundamental shift in city and state telecom procurement dynamics. State and local officials have traditionally relied on landline carriers for core telecom needs. What happens, though, when VoIP and wireless alternatives are suddenly on the table? Can these governmental bodies break out of their comfort zones and take a chance with less-familiar, possibly unproven service providers and vendors?
Also, what happens to these relationships when a city wants to advance a social agenda, say, like trying to light up the city with subsidized Wi-Fi hot spots? The Philadelphia story speaks volumes. But it is only the prequel.
