從 Charlesc 的 blog :Doesn’t Fly. Nobody Comes. Woe.上讀到,紐約時報 Technology 專欄 What if They Built an Urban Wireless Network and Hardly Anyone Used It? 報導了沒有太多人使用的台北 WiFly 無線網路。這件事情在 Wireless Internet Institute, W2i 於台北所舉辦的數位城市研討會(Digital Cities Convention)大會前讀到,實在讓人覺得有點…公關災難(PR disaster)的感覺。
That such a vast and reasonably priced wireless network has attracted so few users in an otherwise tech-hungry metropolis should give pause to civic leaders in Chicago, Philadelphia and dozens of other American cities that are building wireless networks of their own.
Like Taipei, these cities hope to use their new networks to help less affluent people get online and to make their cities more business-friendly. Yet as Taipei has found out, just building a citywide network does not guarantee that people will use it. Most people already have plenty of access to the Internet in their offices and at home, while wireless data services let them get online anywhere using phones, laptops and P.D.A.’s.
就像水鳥君說的,台灣經驗被拿來給芝加哥、費城當作借鏡,真是一件蠻有趣的事情。….
如果你不問到底民眾願意為啥付出上網的代價,架設一個基礎建設只會落得無人搭理的下場(或者很久以後才有人搭理的窘境)。試想:有多少立委與民間團體磨刀霍霍要修理蚊子公園、蚊子活動中心,倘若這個無線城市的美夢最後破掉,蚊子無線城市會面對多少排山倒海來的、合理或不合理的質疑與挑戰?
如果就像馬市長在訪問中所說的,關鍵問題在商業模式的話,我覺得未必是沒有商業模式導致今天的窘境。參與的廠商們從一開始就在討論商業模式。市政府辛勞的規劃者與創新的發動者,他們也反覆在檢討要怎麼推動、並且跟廠商角力全面鋪設的優先順序。但是不得不讓人扼腕的,是這個無線的基礎建設到底有多底層?需要幾層向上銜接才有辦法觸碰到人們的日常生活,觸及真正的內容生活(content life / live)?今天的定價策略與推動策略,可能才是這個無線城市目前無人進駐的真正原因。
也就是說,我們不缺商業模式。但是我們缺乏一個讓各種不同層(multi-layered)的商業模式可以不斷演化、更新的生態圈。在這當中,我們也缺乏對全新人造公共領域的想像。我們不缺乏有耐心的善意公僕幫我們爭取公平的資源配置,但是我們真正要架設一個數位城市時,我們缺領路人。我們沒有一個全職、專心思考作這些基礎建設之後,要把台北帶往何處去的領航者。
沒有駕駛員,只有一堆硬體線路與昂貴的軟體,飛機是飛不起來的。
