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."
The apartments I live in are inhabited by a bunch of broke ass young adults such as myself. Me and 7 or 8 of my geek friends in this all pitch in on a leased line and then operate a WiFi hotspot for anyone in the apartment to use.
The problem we run into most is still the cost of the hardware. For people who don't make alot of money, getting started can really take some sacrafice.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
This rules - another way we can keep information free to all, especially to people who can use it to improve their lives. Someday broadband will be a reliable public utility.
I also reply below your current threshold.
Of course a lot of people, including the poor, are cellphone only these days.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
The internet provides no accountability in any case. The caught number of hackers is dwarfed by the uncaught. Providing poor people with anonymous internet access is probably safer than providing it to the idle rich (college students).
If you're insecure, you can't rely on every ISP in the world to be helpful or vigilant. Not because they shouldn't be, but because they are not.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
It allows them to reasonably download free OS's and software that will run reasonably on a 486?
Linux, BSD and GNU are virtual Godsends to the poor. Third world countries aren't the only ones who can benefit in this manner. The poor everywhere are poor, and having lived in third world countries, in almost pure hunter gatherer conditions, I must say from my own experience that the poor in many of these places are considerably better off than the residents of public housing in rich countries.
"Stone Age" living is still independant living, where one can at least tend to one's own wants and needs in some manner.
The citified poor have been reduced to a state of utter dependency where even their God given abilites to fare for themselves are, for the most part, denied.
Can the poor with a $10 dollar used 486 benefit from broadband. Damned effin' straight they can.
KFG
I can't believe the number of people I see here who are speaking out "against" wide-spread, free, broadband internet-access. And the majority of the people with something negative to say, seem to be saying it because they don't feel that "poor people" are responsible enough to use the internet.
You can think I'm over-reacting, but you should just reread some of the messages that have been posted here. I think free, broadband access in the homes of people who can't afford it is just great.
I think the internet is one of the keys to providing better education and opportunity to those people born into such circumstance that opportunities are rare. Will some people abuse it? Sure...but so? Better they are sitting at home surfing for free porn then some of the other alternatives they could be doing with their lives.
There have been times in my life when money was tight. Because I haven't always had priviledge, does that mean I'm not responsible enough to have as broad a spectrum of rights and opportunities as others? Open your minds...
Craenor
We lost a customer that way about 8 weeks ago.
Tech: How can I help you?
Customer: I would like to cancel my account.
Tech: Ok... [procedure] And if I may ask, why are you leaving us?
Customer: Yeah, I got wireless internet access.
Tech: Oh? There's a wireless provider in your area?
Customer: Yep- my neighbor's offering it.
Tech: Goodness, we had no idea- what is the name of their business?
Customer: Oh he ain't no business, he doesnt even know I'm using it. Anyways, thanks, goodbye
We were all astonished that someone would steal like that and then tell the truth to one of the few organizations that would actually bother figuring out who was letting people leech like that unknowingly...
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
And I thought that the 1996 telecommunications act renewed our government's support for this concept. Didn't they include internet service in the 1996 plan?!!
I live in one of the more desirable suburbs of my city. But I am screwed as far as having any access to highspeed internet service. Even as a paying customer!
WHY AREN'T WE ENFORCING THE LAWS WE HAVE ALREADY TO FIX THIS SITUATION?!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Really. I'm not making this shit up!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I have a 486 and a Mac, both of which were given to me as being "worthless." Every trash day sees a new crop of perfectly functional PII's sitting by the curbside.
If you wish to buy, the second hand tech store three blocks from public housing in my city has PIII's lined up for $175, wiht monitor. For an extra *2* bucks they'll install Red Hat or Mandrake for you.
This isn't necessarily a good deal though, since the Walmart is selling new Linux systems for as little as 200 bucks. That's cheaper than a 19" TV.
Sure, *you* might think of PC's as being multithousand dollar items, but that's your bias. It isn't the case.
KFG
A lot of people here are criticizing the plan as a waste of money, but instead of making a cost vs benefit calculation most seem to be implying no benefits at all.
Anything that gets more information into a poor kid's head sounds like a benefit to me. Even if you only look at improvement in helping a kid with his homework, that's a great benefit right there. I know my childhood would have been a lot different if I had such easy access to information (it wasn't really around until my late teens).
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
I am hoping to do something similar in my school district to help bridge the divide. The plan would be to place WiFi nodes on the schools in low-income neighborhoods. Have WiFi laptops that are configured to connect to these nodes available for the kids to take home for the night. The laptops would be used in class during the day and in homes at night. Our bandwidth usage is only heavy during school hours. The fiber connection from the schools to the gateway is already in place. We would place vlan restrictions on the port where the WiFi is connected to limit access to the gateway only, and time of day the port is active. All I need is some cash from TitleI.
I still don't buy into this digital divide crap. There are plenty of things that low-income residents would like, but can't afford. Since one of the arguments presented in the article is that they can use it to get news. Is there then also a "Cable TV Divide" that prevents them from learning from the news channels and other programming (such as Junkyard Wars and Monster Garage)!
So long as this remains funded by private industry and charities, more power to them. It's the danger that this "digital divide" concept might be pushed into the social responsibility realm where the perception is that it should be funded with tax dollars. It makes me about as pissed as the moment I realized that some of the subsidized housing here in Atlanta was better than the apartment I was living in - it's not about necessity, it's become something completely different.
I feel obligated to quote Michael Powell, "I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like one, but I can't afford it."
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
With a diminishment of actual poverty, those who profit from social strife have to push the bar ever and ever higher. Instead of a divided between the haves and the have nots, we get a divided between the have-mores and the haves.
The fact that Jim has 2 cars in his garage and Joe has 15 in his garage thus become a social crisis, evidence of the failure in capitalism which requires much greater government control of our lives.
I have family on public assistance. They own three TVs, 2 VCRs, a DVD player.
Oooh! A DVD player. Those are almost $60! They are living in the lap of luxury.
When I was unemployed, the internet was a valuable asset in looking for a job. I paid for it myself (from savings...a novel idea).
You just don't understand what it's like to be truly poor. There are people who have to choose between a new winter coat and rent. Yet there are some who would still find a way to get a second-hand computer if it would help their kids in school.
The slashdot crowd seems to think that the internet is used as a magic wand of education.
Think of everything that a kid can find on the Internet that could help them with school assignments or just exploration. If a kid wants to know about dinosaurs, it's all here. If he wants to learn about the space program, it's here. I'm not saying that the Internet will magically teach someone who doesn't want to learn, but it's an incredibly helpful tool. They will develop computer skills, something that will be very handy when they want to get a job.
Let's not forget the adults. If someone wants to teach themselves web design, programming, or some other skill, the Internet is there for them. If they want to find out what scholarship programs exist for their kids, they can do it online a lot more effectively than they can by asking around the neighborhood. If they have medical questions, the answers can often be found online.
As long as these programs are PRIVATELY FUNDED, I think they are fine. I am just tired of paying for them.
So you are in favor of programs funded by someone else's money, just not yours.
That's why I favor public funding. Then you don't end up with a small percentage of generous people trying to fund every program to help the poor while the "not with my money" crowd just buys themselves more toys.
You can find children in even the poorest of school that excel.
Your talking about outlyers, not the typical kid. On average, the children in the poorest schools perform the poorest. Part of the reason for that is the lack of books, Internet, etc. that the wealthier kids have easy access to. What's wrong with trying to level the playing field a little?
Do the programs work to get people out of dire straits. No, they never have and never will.
Yes, actually, they do. Project HeadStart was a great example, providing preschool children with health, education, and nutrition assistance. It was quite successful.