I'm struck by 3 issues related to this article.
#1 - Access to information is a fundamental right? How is that defined? What responsiblity does that imply for the public entities that house/maintain that information? How about information outside the purvue of public entities. Must public entities not only make the information available but provide the end-to-end infrastructure to deliver it to all constituents as well? If that's the case, where do you draw the line? Must they provide the PCs at the user end as part of the deal? Haven't they already done much of this at the public libraries?
#2 - What is the commitment on the part of the city? Who exactly's doin' what? Does Google provide the full build-out? They install 'n pay for all components including towers/antennas, receivers, routers, etc.? Once the thing's functional, who's keepin' the thing running? Does Google IT staff take on the ongoing support? Is this to be absorbed by the city IT folks? If it's the latter, God help 'em all. I'm of the opinion that most .gov, .edu, and .org organizations have no business attempting to do this based upon questionable up-time and reliability.
#3 - Do we really want to continue down the road where everything uses the advertising business model? I, for one, am damn tired of gettin' blasted by ads all the time 'n everywhere. I'm tired of gas pumps blastin' me with ads. Do our stadiums really need to do the "Naming Rights" thing? Will some company assume responsiblity for paving our roads? If so, just imagine how godawful that situation'll become in short order. This is that old "Channel One in the schools" all over again. I don't see it as benign. I think we're all better off payin' our own way, thank you.
Now, your digital isolation is a different kettle of fish. I can certainly understand your interest in a similar Wi-Fi build-out. Seems to me that the "Telecommunications Act of 1996" addressed that here in the states. Don't know 'bout Canada. Good luck to you!