Fundamental problem with your question: Cities have already figured out how to get private firms to bear the risk. You write: "At a time when many cities are trapped for cash and facing pressing issues such as re-building infrastructure and other social issues, Wi-Fi access has become a priority." Sure, and metro-scale Wi-Fi paid for by the winning bidders/contractors (San Francisco, Portland, Tempe, Philadelphia, Anaheim, etc.) provides an easy way for cities to extend access without paying for it. There's also another part if you want to understand the enthusiasm. Philadelphia pays for 500 to 700 leased wired lines among its buildings outside of the main city hall area. They will shift these wired lines to wireless broadband via EarthLink using not Wi-Fi but much more reliable point-to-multipoint links over Motorola Canopy equipment. Canopy forms the backbone of the Philadelphia (proposed) network. This will likely increase efficiency (many buildings will gain faster service) and will absolutely decrease costs, possibly by millions of dollars a year. And one more factor. In cities like St. Cloud, Florida, that decided to contract to have a free network built, the many thousands of residents who will wind up giving up low-speed DSL or even dial-up in favor of using the local network will have more disposable cash to spend locally, thus reclaiming some or all of the cost of the network. We'll see if the math ultimately works, but that's the intent at least.