The idea of free wireless Internet extending to all corners of San Francisco sounded too good to be true.

Tired of shelling out big bucks for high-speed connection and evenings spent pressed against a cold window in the vain pursuit of picking up a neighbor’s wireless signal, the prospect of free service swept a wave of gratitude over San Francisco, but the excitement faded quickly.

At first glance, the deal seemed to be nothing short of a much-needed social service, but the proposal encountered obstacles from the start.

For months, we heard about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposal of free citywide Wi-Fi in an effort to bridge the digital divide.

It was difficult to dispute at first, but a recent report by the city’s budget analyst, Harvey Rose, basically concluded that the proposed deal with Google-Earthlink was considerably flawed.

From the beginning, Newsom struggled to get the approval of both the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Rose pointed out that a feasibility study was not conducted, and the city’s technology consultant, Citivium, suggested that they consider all alternative methods before settling on wireless broadband, but Newsom was dead-set on the Google-Earthlink deal and pushed it aggressively-- which smells fishy in light of his reported hobnobbing with Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin in their private jet.

The deal received substantial criticism from Rose because the city would likely face competition from private interests. Earthlink, which has existing wireless signals, would incur some serious conflict of interest issues and would have unfair advantage over other competing providers. Plus, Google would get exclusive access to the users of Earthlink’s basic service. This would allow the company free access to millions of points of users’ personal data, bringing up significant privacy concerns.

Above all, the most striking and severe flaw is the fact that the free service would actually be slower than current DSL and cable Internet technology. What’s more, as Wi-Fi activist Bruce Wolfe pointed out to two major San Francisco newspapers last week, the city’s infamous fog and hilly terrain are notorious for muddying reception. Residents who live in high rises have an even lesser chance of receiving a signal.

In order to get service that is on par with current connections, residents would have to either purchase an expensive wireless bridge device or subscribe to the paid service for more than $20 per month. Suddenly the idea of “free” Wi-Fi seems to be going out the window.

All of these drawbacks do not mean that the prospect of free Internet is gone. Alternative proposals involving a more comprehensive approach must be explored. Incorporating the city’s existing fiber infrastructure and short-term contracts with groups of Wi-Fi providers to create a series of access points is among options that simply make more sense.

Municipally owned Internet is possible and we are willing to wait for this service if the city delivers more public oversight.