Slashdot Mirror
Using WiFi to Bridge the Digital Divide
andori writes "CNN is running a story about how WiFi is enabling low-income residents Internet access. The project is set at a public housing development in Boston, Massachusetts. Residents buy the WiFi NIC, and the access if free. It is nice to see people making an effort to expand the reach of the Internet to a broader audience."
Will this do any more than free dialup access did?
cheap second-hand computers. And wi-fi adapters can be found for under $30.
I also reply below your current threshold.
Allowing free access like this seems to have the potential for chaos. Accountability for who is doing what over the connection would be a painful process at best. Hopefully they'll incorporate some type of authentication with a pre-registration required, even if it is free, just to create a sense (even if it ends up being false) of accountability.
I carried my ass to a library for internet access.
but I really doubt this will be very useful in improving many low-income families lives. I mean, sure, having Intenet access is fun and all, but I mostly see it being used for music-sharing, IM, and porn.
There's always a few people who really take an affinity to tech, and will run with it, and maybe start a career, but they'd probably do it without WiFi.
Anyways, my point is the money could probably be used better somewhere else, either in the USA or elsewhere in the world, like the countless refugee camps throughout Asia and Africa, where people have really fucked-up lives.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Perhaps you can see this combination because you can get cheap/free computers capable of wifi reception but to escape public housing you might need an extra $3-4 hundred a month in income.
What about the millions of poor Americans in rural areas who have no chance at 'high speed' internet access? Are we now going to give them DirecWay dishes?
Free as in no cost for the end user, maybe.
"The project, mostly paid for with a $200,000 grant from the Kellogg Foundation and supported by companies like Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft as well as public and nonprofit entities..."
So we have evil corporations, nonprofits, and public (funded by you and I) entities. The label "free access" sounds as if the bandwidth fairy visited Boston last week.
that we are giving our underprivilaged free access to steal music and download porn. This won't greatly improve anyones life. The internet isn't some savior of the masses, a neccesity, or even a really useful tool. For people that do business on the internet it is useful, to everyone else it is just a pretty neat toy. These are low income housing dwellers that can't even afford a place to live without it being subsidized. I am not saying we shouldn't give them internet access for free, that is a nice gesture. But will it really affect their lives positively? Do we need to herald this as a great thing? We have just subjected a whole new batch of people to spam that were previously unaffected.
The whole deal with the internet and slashdot is anonymity and the right to privacy. Why would we want to feel more accountable, or care about feeling that way. Especially when you are talking about the free speach aspect of the internet. Then less accountability is better. I don't want people to know that I just posted that my neighbor is a drug dealer to help get him run out of the complex, especially my well armed neighbor. Granted that is a little contrived, but you get the picture. Free speach is all about anonymity, or the ability to be anonymous if one wants to be. Without it, most discourse, political discourse especially, would be dead.
All of this may change with things like MIT OCW, but as it stands now the internet is a piss poor medium for education. When I was 12 years old, I used the internet for email, porn, videogames, and conceptually copying reports for school. I suspect I would have been an mp3 fiend if they'd been around.
Sometimes it bothers me the way people talk about the internet. It takes just as much intelligence and discipline to learn from the internet as it does to learn from books and teachers. It's nice that they're giving these people internet access, but I'm under no illusion that this will help children develop in any significant way.
So, if the people in the public housing have a WiFi NIC (and, presumably, a computer), why are they in public housing?
Ah yes... the usual debate. As in, why are they buying anything like this if they are poor?
Think about it this way - if you have kids, you just opened up a whole new set of possibilities for them by purchasing a used PC (at the pawnshow, used computer store, etc - used hardware is CHEAP unless you want top of the line.) That and Internet access now allows them to at least try and keep up with the other kids nationwide that have access to the Internet. Heck, even if it's not used for direct learning (IE, they are playing games or downloading music, etc., instead of reading text books line ;-) the act of becoming familiar with the way things work will allow them not to fall behind nearly as much. You might not think about it much, since you are at least somewhat computer and Internet savy (Hey, you are posting on /. - that could say either good or bad things about you ;-)
And as for adults using it... well, I personally use mine for more than just crusing porn and downloading music. In fact, I don't do much of either one o' those - instead, I use it as a learning tool of sorts (Got a C++ question? Google It. Got a medical question? Google it. Need to know what a phrase in a contract means? Google It.), and to run an online company (my game company). The latter wouldn't to apply to nearly as many people as the former - just about anything you want to know is there. And that's only ONE application of the Internet. It's a great enabler for people, and I think it's a wise investment on anyone's part to hook up - even if it means scraping together the cash for some really cheap hardware over the process of months.
NOT getting Internet access, IMHO, is the mistake.
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
Back when I was poor, wireless networking equipment cost four figures. And that was if you could find someone getting rid of their old, outdated equipment. Kids today have no idea what it was like trying to build networks (wired or wireless) in the early to mid 90s when 10Base2 NICs could cost over a hundred dollars, gigabyte hard drives were huge, a 486/33 with 16 megs was a beast, dialup from the only local ISP was $50/month for 100 hours, etc. I remember paying $350 for my first 14,400bps modem and that was a bargain.
You don't know how good you have it with your $10 100mbit network cards, $10/month ISPs, 80 gig hard drives, Gigahertz computers, etc. ;)
90% of these poor need to get off their ass and take responsibility for their lives.
Yeah, that's real practical after their inner-city public school "education" and no money for college or trade schools. You were probably happy to have mommy and daddy feed you good meals and provide you with all of the luxuries of life while you went to school.
Broadband internet access is a luxury (hell the internet is a luxury), and if you can't afford it don't place the burden of payment on the working class of this country.
You really enjoy having people to look down on, don't you? You wouldn't want them to learn something. You would not want their kids to be able to use the Internet to do research for their school projects. It's important to keep them and their kids down. To hell with society and a civilization. If someone is born into poverty, we need to make sure that they stay there, right?
I know you're a troll, but I'm sure there's at least one idiot who will think you have a point, so I'll respond.
Unlike Cable TV, I think it's pretty obvious that the Internet can be used as a tool to better oneself.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
but I really doubt this will be very useful in improving many low-income families lives. I mean, sure, having Intenet access is fun and all, but I mostly see it being used for music-sharing, IM, and porn.
What a pathetically closed-minded response. Maybe that's what you use it for, but there are so many, uncountable numbers, that need access for education and research, and they really don't have time for games like you obviously do.
As someone who has worked in public schools for several years now, I can tell you, without a doubt, that it is the poorer kids who stay after school, or show up first thing in the morning, just so they can have access to a computer. The rich kids get to go home and hang out in their cushy bedrooms, waiting for Mom to yell 'Dinner's ready.'
School gets out around 1:30/2:00 for most US secondary schools, but I maintain a policy that as long as kids are willing to stay and work, I will stay and keep the lab open. I am often there until 4:00 or 5:00 each and every day, and these kids are working their butts off, occasionally emailing friends, but they are certainly not wasting their time downloading music or surfing for porn. I find it quite heartbreaking that they have to stay after, day after day, just to type a paper, or finish a presentation, or work on their personal web project, when others have access willy-nilly and get to do what they please.
And what about the elderly? I pity you when you age, because you will really have no clue. They now have access to health information and subscription plans. Are you aware how many low-income elderly (and most of them are) pay close to 1000 per month in prescription just to stay alive? Do you care? How about getting sick, being told you have prostrate cancer? They can now log on and share their fears with dozens of others. Retired military - groups and messages everywhere, a time to reminisce and swap stories.
Don't ever belittle technology, especially here, and say it is just for music and porn, and most especially don't ever say that is all the poor will do with it.
Not that I have anything against the impoverished, but...
These people are living in PUBLIC housing projects? Housing that you and I pay for with our tax dollars? I'm in a pretty nice income bracket, living in the middle of Dallas, but I can't get DSL because I'm too far from the CO. However, people we have to subsidize by giving them a place to live (among other subsidies) deserve (probably) high-bandwidth wireless Internet access?
Perhaps we should be more concerned with these people supporting themselves (for instance, paying for their own housing, food, power, etc.) rather than sitting around browsing the Internet.
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but this is only slightly less ridiculous than trying to get broadband internet into third-world countries...
quote from poster...
"I find it quite heartbreaking that they have to stay after, day after day, just to type a paper, or finish a presentation, or work on their personal web project, when others have access willy-nilly and get to do what they please."
-------
That's heartbreaking? That student's have access to maybe $1,000 computers to use for free at school to check email, instant message, and do school work?
While I applaud the effort to bring technology use and understanding to others, I condemn the ludricrous belief, that giving someone a computer, internet access, etc, will allow him somehow make him technically proficient or better his life.
Perhaps we should give away free hammers? Then the poor could build their own houses. Or we could give away airplanes, and then the poor can all become airline pilots. The tools are worthless without understanding.
I can see this benefitting a small group of people however.
1)Poor families with an older child. The child likely has some technical instruction at school and can bring his knowledge of the computer home to benefit his parents.
2)Someone who has completed some vocational training and who can legimately justify the cost of computer equipment as a business expense to further their knowledge of office applications.
3)The home-bounds that due to injuries are unable to work, or unable to leave home, yet still had knowledge of how to operate a computer, or had someone to help them along. THis would enable them to interact with the outside world, keep up on current events.
And I'm glad to see that part of this includes the party having to buy equipment. We've all seen someone grab something for free (to them) that they couldn't use, just to have it. People who invest in something have some motivation to use it, benefit from it, and keep it working.
Still, the biggest drawback to a program that gives away technical this or that is always that the people targeted to benefit from it are untrained to use it.
I had a neighbor who's "cousin" reportedly would get him "good deals". He'd always come home with faxes and 10 year old useless computers and ask me if they were any good, or if he could do this or that on them. They were junk and useless to him. A skilled computer operator could have put them to some use, but it was useless to his needs, and he wouldn't have had any idea how to run the software, even if it had worked on the machine. If he had this offered to him, he would have signed up, bought himself a WiFi card, and then the thing would have sit there when it broke and he couldn't afford to fix it, and didn't know how. Then he'd also be out the $100 that he could have used for a new winter coat, or a decent suit for a job interview.
Plans like this are neat, interesting, and a great way to look for grants to let you play with tech. However, it's probably not the most efficient way to better the situation of people living at poverty levels.
When you consider that public libraries, schools, often community centers, provide free computer and internet access to the public, it is almost a vanity to assume that a new plan to give internet access to the poor, as long as they buy a computer, and wifi card.
And I agree with some other posters, that considering these other options already being available, that public internet access via a WiFi point and targetted towards the poor, might innappropriate use of tax dollars that might be spent on better programs. These funds could be put into more community computer classes at libraries. Funds could be used to provide more training for teachers at school, so that those teachers could provide more technical training.
And I am involved in technical training at a school in a "poor" neighborhood, so i have given this type of thing quite a bit of thought.