"Public" wireless internet in Madison?

The Capital Times reports:

Wireless Internet could be available in downtown Madison and at the Dane County Regional Airport by this spring, said mayoral spokesman George Twigg.

The state Department of Administration is putting out a request for proposals today seeking vendors interested in building the network...

But how "public" is it?

[I]t is expected that the chosen vendor, not taxpayers, would pay for installation of the network and then recapture the cost through user fees.

Twigg said some access to basic sites on the Internet might be free, but anything beyond that would incur a charge.

But, he added, "It is our hope that it will be less expensive than Internet access fees from other commercial vendors."

Twigg said the city is trying to strike a balance between imposing user fees and building the cost of using the network onto the property tax.

Well, it sounds like wireless internet, but it doesn't sound all that public. One vendor is going to get the deal for the whole city, and we're all left paying user fees forever? And who's going to decide which are the "basic sites" that you don't have to pay for? Since millions of non-basic sites are offered for free, why is the provider collecting a fee on these? Is this the way for mainstream media to recapture its dominance?

Should we want "public" wireless internet in this form or should we be quite actively opposed to it? Seriously, email me. Is this good or bad?

UPDATE: Here's the Wisconsin State Journal's article today on the subject, suggesting that the only the local government sites would be free. Which is basically saying, nothing is going to be free. Actually, that's better than letting only some MSM through. I could support this project I think if only the fees are kept very low. It should be cheap and easy so that students and short-term visitors will participate.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The WiFi in Milwaukee is really free, an emailer writes. Several people have written to express suspicion of the proposed deal between the city and an individual provider.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: An emailer writes that the plan is bad:

Sounds to me like the "cable TV licensing" model applied to wireless networking (with the free access to government web sites being equivalent to the "community access" channels). City picks exclusive vendor, gets cut of revenue (either now or eventually), other vendors are restricted (either now or eventually). Doesn't sound promising.