Slashdot Mirror
Philadelphia Considers Free Citywide Wireless Access
The Associated Press is running an story about Philadelphia's city goverment seriously considering creating the world's largest hotspot.
"For about $10 million, city officials believe they can turn all 135 square miles of Philadelphia into the world's largest wireless Internet hot spot....the city would likely offer the service either for free, or at costs far lower than the $35 to $60 a month charged by commercial providers"
That is quite brilliant and actually cheap. Think of it, the city could reduce costs in other areas such as, say water meter reading - instead of having guy go out with a scanner to each meter, it could transmit to the office when necessary. That alone would probably save a few million. Services could use spare bandwidth for other services such as easier deployment of traffic monitors, stoplight optimization, human control of high traffic stoplights during peak hours.
I know there is going to be many people that narrow mindedly say that the dollars could be spent on the poor or in some other avenue of no return. The city leaders have struck upon an idea that will actually revolve into a massive savings, data collection, data manipulation, data optimization threshold that will in turn benefit the entire population - it just wont be a direct "ME" benefit to everyone. I'm actually quite interested in seeing how this pans out.
Better tell the cops so they don't rough-up anyone with a laptop.
"I am not a number! I am a free man!"-- The Prisoner
Who will pay for all the bandwiths of the pr0n downloaders?
What I'm thinking is, how will some health groups react? Adverse affects on health by wireless, especially in such large roll-out, are still not entirely proven harmless. No, I am not worried about health effects before all the flames come in, but there are some people/groups that tend to pay attention to this.
Philadelphia has been desperate to attract young profesionals to the city. This might work
"Phillidelphia City has been served a class action lawsuit by parents of the recent spurt of two-headed babies being born in the city. Scientists believe all the genetic anomolies are the result of the city's huge Wifi network and the microwave radiation it emits". ;-)
-psy
...security with something like this. Would you have to log in (even if it's free) so they can track you? I mean, if you go, open your laptop, get an IP and do evil things, how would they ever track your actions back to you? With your wired ISP account, there's at least SOME way to do that isn't there?
The only way you can improve technology is by getting the public sector involved in a defining leadership role. If you leave it to the corps, they'll keep you at the horse-and-buggy stage forever, just to keep robbing you blind.
Let's hope this signals a trend.
This is pretty thin on details but $10 million in infrastructure and $1.5/year to maintain seems awfully low for such a large coverage area. It's great that Philly has a mayor that is so technologically inclined. Perhaps when the conservatives start whining that there should be controls placed on the network to eliminate freedom of use (porn, etc) he might step in and kick it out?
I suppose that you get what you pay for when you are using a city-wide network (at ~$15) but shouldn't we be offering this without restriction on what you can visit?
At $10,000,000, that would be a nice contract to have.
What do you bet that someone with really good connections gets the contract?
If they're going to spent 10M taxpayers' dollars, I'd hope they have solved important problems such as local poverty and homelessness before they set up low cost WiFi for people that can already afford computers.
But the times have changed
The less I say the more my work gets done
`Cause I live and breathe this Philadelphia freedom -- Bernie Taupin and Elton John
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Well it's not going to be free. Taxes will pay for it. Local I suspect, but depending on the Senators and Reps from PA, they might get some Federal monies for it, good old Pork as the people from states not getting the dough call it.
This could be a good thing. After all, pushing the technology envelope is great. Adding wireless sounds wonderful and geeky and technically enjoyable.
.02
What about the security aspects though?
And who will be in charge of the usage of the acounts, monitoring of traffic, etc. to make sure the l33t kids down on 14th street aren't trying to knock over the DOD or the Pentagon? Not to mention, keeping up all the wireless devices on security updates, and latest antivirus patterns to make sure it doesn't turn into a network of zombies that ensure a cyber terrorist attack?
just my
I just hope in 10 years from now we don't find Philidelphia with the highest cancer rates / sq mile...
This is what Philly needs... Unfortunately the city is a bit stagnant in certain areas and always feeling overshadowed by Washington D.C. or New York City (for non-USians, those cities are about 2 hours away from each).
Knowing the history of Philadelphia, this will come out 5 years after Longhorn and/or Duke Nukem and cost $3.5 billion New World Dollars (the currency established in 2045).
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Okay, so that's Grand Haven, Philly... Any others?
One city at a time...
Considering the obvious insecurity of wireless, how will they keep the illegal downloading down? Almost anyone who knows what they're doing can easily spoof a MAC address and download questionable content and get away with it.
... once all necessary wire-tapping capabilities are installed, of course.
I work for the Philly government... and I haven't heard about this..
Actually, my department is going to be starting a pilot for the employees, now whether this will feed into the 'big one' or not stands to be seen.
The city's chief information officer, Dianah Neff, is quoted in the article:
[Emphasis added]
I have never seen a wirless dial up modem before, have you? I also hope they don't plan on using Blue Socket, out of personal experiences of a much smaller installation attempt.
On a side note, I don't think I want to sit on the front porch for too long in Philadelphia. That might be a big health risk! Shouldn't they fix those issues first, before they worry about being at the forfront of wirless access?
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Cell phone comapnies may even take an interest as pocket pc's become more popular.
Not to mention local internet providers. Dial up would loose its last few subscribers and broadband providers would need to offer something extra to keep its customers from taking advantage of free internet.
Considering the budgetary problems that Philadelphia has and its continued reliance on the rest of the Commonwealth to bail it out, one has to wonder why, if it has the ~$10 million to spare to pull this off, why it doesn't use that money to fix its streets, hire more cops, lower taxes, etc.
Or does this mean that once again all the rest of us PAers get to foot the bill?
No, I didn't RTFA. If it's a story about PA, it can't be good.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
No mention of security in the article, but I would hope they use some kind of encryption, else the script kiddies will have a field day getting a city's worth of passwords out of Philly.
SAILING MISHAP
Personally, I have my doubts that the city could pull it off competently. Governments can sometimes drive innovation by the private sector or academia, with the best example being the Internet. However, government attempts at putting similar programs in place are almost invariably plagued by poor implementation, shoddy work, and cost overrruns.
~Especially~ Philly's government.
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/
Ah, Philadelphia, my home town. I went to attend one of the 80211-planet.com Wi-Fi shows there a few years ago. The conf was pretty small compared to all of the other shows I've been to. Thank goodness that's changed. We did quite a bit of wardriving, a snipplet of which you can see here. Since then, Wi-Fi coverage has exploded, which you can see here and for your area.
Of course, the pansy-assed white folks there can't cook, there are still a few places to get a decent meal.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
If publicly provided wifi is cheaper than commerically provided wifi, it is because the service is subsidized by increased taxation (or the redirection of tax funds from other uses).
There's nothing magical about the state - it cannot provide wifi somehow far more cheaply than it costs commerical providers. Indeed, the state strongly tends to be *far* less efficient than commerical providers because it has access to public funds and so doesn't have to worry about being efficient in the way a commerical company must.
Consequently, what is actually going on here is that the state has decided that everyone who pays tax is going to pay for those people who use wifi to have an expensive, inefficient service.
The service is *cheaper at the point of use* but it *actually* a lot more expensive because it is inefficiently provided, and you *will* pay, because the service is being paid for by the state, which is to say, through the level of taxation that exists.
However, because the state service is cheaper at point of use, it will wipe out the commercial market, who will not be able to compete.
The state will then be the only provider of wifi access. If, as is normally the case with state services, the quality service provided is poor, you no longer *have* anyone else to turn to.
Right now, if your wifi provider is awful, you change provider.
In the future, if the state provider is awful, not only is it awful AND expensive, you don't have a choice.
The state should NOT be involved in commercial enterprise.
--
Toby
Free broadband access means 70% of AMericans could watch video from any source at all. People could download video off of p2p networks, meaning that the high barrier to entry for getting a TV show or movie out to an audience would be changed to a lower barrier to entry. You would still have to have cameras (but they are getting reall cheap now) and actors and production sets. But the distribution system (tv stations, cable tv systems, movie theaters etc) has always been the obstacle to be overcome.
/i? sense: meaning that leftist ideas about raising the tax rates on the rich to former levels (e.g., 60% or more), and ideas about welfare for any poor person, and universal health care, these ideas are shunted aside.
But when anyone with a camera, free editing software, and some time and actors can make a movie, then upload it onto p2p, where it could be watched on free or very cheap p2p, that is going to mean that more leftist, liberal, progressive ideas are going to be propagated into American minds.
Right now, the mainstream media/Hollywood is liberal in the social sense (i.e., gay and minority rights, abortion, etc), but they are quite conservative in the economics
But free broadband would disrupt the media/entertainment distribution machine, thus allowing penetration for more liberal, leftist ideas.
I am all for it!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The article says that they would use houndreds to thousands of wirless access points. Let's assume that they end up using 10,000 access points:
$10,000,000 / 10,000 access points = 1,000 $ / access point
Does it really cost $1000 for hardware and installation if you do it 10,000 times?
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
I wonder how all this extra cost will translate into taxes? A network with hundreds of thousands of users would take some maintenance.
Would they really allow full free access, or would they want to limit it to just port 80? I would think having full open access would just allow script kiddies to go nuts. Would there be any real harm if just port 80 were allowed? Would it be possible to use comprimised machines in Philly to DDOS if that was the only port allowed? Ok, enough questions, back to work.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
Yes, I agree; the public financed projects are what made America great. THat and the high, progressive tax rates we had up until about 25 years ago. Lately we have just been coasting.
THe reason why we are headed downhill is because of the propaganda bought by the rich and the corporations for the last 30 years, propaganda which denigrated public service, government projects, and which glamourized corporations and the corporate sector.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Let's look at this for what it really is -- government subsidized Internet access. You think these access points and T1 trunks are free? No, they are not. They cost money to own and run, and that money is going to be taken from the taxpayers of Philadelphia in order to put this service up.
I'm damned glad I don't live there. Although I love the idea of citywide wireless access, but if I live and work in the suburbs, I would strongly object to my tax dollars being spent to construct and maintain a system I will never use.
But, hey! I shouldn't be complaining. I'm sure those people in the city need "free" wireless access a lot more than I need money in my pocket, right? After all, it's government's job to make sure everyone has everything they ever want for free, even if it means robbing the not-so-rich to pay the not-so-poor. Ya gotta love income redistribution, vote buying, and all the other wonderful things going on in City Hall.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I wish that my city would do this. Most of the ISPs in Toronto are so problematic and greedy*, it would be great if there was a government-owned ISP that provided DSL and WiFi access. Of course, it would have to have very progressive privacy policy. ;)
It would be a lot cheaper (assuming the city wasn't in it to make a profit), and it could run at a loss - that is, if a resession hit and the local cable monopoly started raising prices and cutting service, the government-owned ISP could keep high-tech businesses and citizens working.
*Rogers cable sucks and Bell-owned Sympatico sucks. Look is very decent (no upload/download cap, run the services you want, very reliable, you can buy your own modem, and they run an apt repository), but I have a friend in Aurora who's paying $40/month for 9Mbps cable access! Why isn't this happening in TO?
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Philadelphia is different than other cities on the east coast in that there is a 'city-like' section that is downtown Philadelphia. There are however a LOT of suburbs that are considered Philadelphia as well...I dont think the article noted whether these suburbs (like West and North) will be covered?
It'll be interesting to see how Comcast reacts to this...comcast is a major precense in phildelphia (including its corporate headquarters)...they own 2 of the major sports teams (Flyers & 76ers), and they're one of the leading broadband providers in the area...this can't possibly make them happy...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Is it really the function of government to provide luxuries such as this for its citizens? I could see perhaps offering free WiFi at public libraries, but it is just too much to ask taxpayers to pay for this sort of thing (and they will pay, regardless of whether or not access is "free"). WiFi access is a LUXURY. It is not vital to promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What's the difference between this and raising taxes for the purposes of providing everyone in Philly with a cell phone? Seriously, why not spend this money on education programs for at-risk kids or some other cause that benefits EVERYONE, not just one segment of the population who happens to own a laptop.
After all, you don't exactly dial when you call someone on the phone nowadays, do you?
When was the last time you saw, let alone used, a rotary dial phone? Outside film and television, the last time I saw or used one must have been close to 15 years ago.
In fact, I bet if you gave anyone under the age of 20 such a phone and told them to dial 911 (999, 112, or whatever) then they wouldn't have a clue how to do it.
Dialling, per se, is obsolete. However the language is still with us, and likely will be for a very long time.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Oops! Link to wardriving video is Here, rather.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Can it still be called war-driving if the whole place is wi-fi accessible?
Phillidelphia today announced it was going to scrap its city wide wireless network after analysis showed it just wasn't cost effective. In other news Verizon wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile all today signed contracts with the city to place additional towers around the city to help spread and boost wireless coverage, a city spokesman declined to comment on how much the deal was worth.
I think this is a monumentally bad idea. Free (in name only, since you WILL pay for it with taxes) access provided by the government will reduce choice and innovation. Do you really want the gov. to control what you can and can not view? As some have mentioned, first maybe they will block "terrorist sites", then porn, then anything about militia's, then guns, then gay sites, then hate speach, then...
If this is successful, wouldn't it (eventually) put most of the ISPs in Philly out of business? Who wants to pay $40/mo for a cable connection when you can buy a $60 access point and get access for free?
Obviously there will still be a market for business, people requiring higher bandwidth, etc., but I would think the majority of people would switch.
Speak before you think
The current setup they have in LOVE park is free to use and unrestricted. I'd hope they would follow suit with a city wide implentation.
6 invites to give away to the first 6 people to flame Taco
This is what we need -- more government intrusion into the free market. Tax payer dollars can never do efficiently what private dollars can do in so many cases.
I hate to see this happen -- how many ISPs will initially get badly hurt only for the public to find out that the public wireless network won't handle the bandwidth.
If my ISP gave me the same service as my city clerk's office did, I'd dump it.
I recently moved to a suburb of the Twin cities called Chaska, MN. Right when I moved they were rolling out their implementation of a town-wide wireless network. Their solution involved handing out wireless bridges to customers and sell service for $15 dollars a month.
Service was poor to nonexistant for the first three months. But as more residents bought in to the idea and turned on their bridges, access speeds and reliability greatly improved. Now its much faster than dial-up and I can even play a few games online.
Go Gusties
As long as you are inside the city limits, you should be ok. However, will they have to enclose Philadelphia in a Faraday's cage in order to prevent the signal from leaking across administrative boundaries, or cite the federal law against signal theft to anybody trespassing on urban WiFi spectrum in a nearby forest, especially after the city has closed for the night?
And I won't even discuss the legal ramifications of accidentally providing WiFi access across a state or national boundary...
You slashdotters have your heads so wrapped around the idea of more free internet access (like a child's candy idiot brain), that you completely forget to ask any of the important questions! One of them being... since when is the government in the ISP business!! What about all of these businesses in the private sector!! Why doesn't the government go ahead and own its own cable/satellite TV service... own its own phone service... own its own automobile plant?!?!?!
what the heck is going on here? The constitutional box that we are supposed to be enforcing our government to stay in is nowhere to be seen... we don't even know what the box is anymore. and yet, this crowd is the first people to stand up and complain when a police office ridicules a priest for using public wireless access points outside of a library!! come on guys...
If that's the case, I'm sure the Homeland Security Dept will enforce a cap of about 5bps ;)
Comcast will never let it happen. They have their corporate HQ here in Philadelphia, and are quite influential in the city. They will find a way to kill this initiative. Why am I so sure? Look at their past behavior:
They own some of the Philadelphia sports teams and refuse to sell the home game broadcast rights to satellite providers for any price-- so if you live in Philadelphia and want to see televised Flyers and Sixers home games you must have Comcast cable, period.
RCN tried to start offering cable TV, internet and phone service in Philadelphia a few years ago, and Comcast used their influence to throw up so many roadblocks, that RCN gave up and went away.
They do not, and will not, stand for something endangering their revenues on their home turf.
~Philly
We're getting a little of this- the city is equipping all of downtown Duluth MN and Canal Park with free wifi access. Can I get a HELL YEAH from my fellow D-towners?
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Call me paranoid but this seems like just too easy to tap into and monitor traffic. Or access wifi webcams. Or hundreds of other ways to use/misuse this system to watch the sheep.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
A while back, a town in Missouri wanted to offer telecommunications as a public service. A bunch of lobbyists for the telecommunications industry perceived this as a threat and got the state legislature to pass a law forbidding any local government from offering telecommunications as a public service. The Missouri Municipal League sued claiming that federal law pre-empted the states from prohibiting the cities. The case was agued all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was decided in favor of the state (and telecommunications industry). The case is "Nixon, Attorney General Of Missouri V. Missouri Municipal League Et Al." and a PDF of the decision can be found here At least 11 other states have similar laws to prevent local governments from "competing" with private telecommunications businesses.
The upshot is that if Verizon (or the industry generally) feels threatened, they will just buy some state legislators and pass a state law prohibiting it.
And anyone that knows Philadelphia Gas Works would never go near this. They offer terrible to non-existent customer service. If you get someone on the phone, they are surly and abusive. They refuse to collect on deadbeats and continuously raise rates on those who do pay to stay afloat. In bed with the corrupt city government (which is just as bad in the support area) so deeply that we can't get rid of them. Anything this city does (besides the center city district) turns to shit, and this will be no exception.
This guy's hit the nail on the head.
Let's say the city offers this at $15/month (the true price is probably similar to what the current ISP's charge (~$40), but we'll just hide that extra $25 in taxes)
Who would continue to pay 3x for the same service? So all the other guys leave Philly. Residential Cable, DSL, dialup...bye bye, because they'll have no user base. Small business service soon to follow.
We are using a mesh technology that they say will guarantee 300k anywhere in the city. So far we have had some difficulties getting it working properly due to tree foliage and buildings. It feels like we have been putting the repeaters on every light pole!
Perhaps, but if they're the major player in the area, I'm sure the city will be buying from them in the first place.
The city already offers necessary infrastructure like roads and schools. Internet, like water, is becoming a necessity.
On the other hand, this would also give the aspiring Rush Limbaughs of the world the ability to get their message out there. But I don't think that the general public has any problem getting messages from either the left or the right at this point in time. Otherwise, why would so many be so polarized on many issues?
I think that there is really no shortage of proseletyzing for "raising the tax rates...welfare for any poor person...universal health care" (see NY Times). I really can't see how this supposed 'free*' broadband would "disrupt the media/entertainment distribution machine." You might get some more creative ideas injected into it, but I'm not convinced that shoestring budgets would produce something to compete with the big money that entertainment companies have. Anyway, those guys are mostly interested in finding stuff that many people want to watch/listen to. If people wanted to watch this sort of thing, there'd be more of it.
* As many posters have pointed out, someone has to pay for this . RFTA'ing, I saw some mention of the possibility of a fee to use the network. But it will still IMHO likely be taxpayer subsidized, not unlike public transportation. I'm not aware (but would be interested in any examples) of any major public transportation system in the US that is self funding (definitely not in the DC area). And how do you get the govt to improve service when they end up with a monopoly (and why would a govt monopoly be any better than a Microsoft monopoly--seems like it would probably be worse).
JOIN US FOR PONG!
This is just silly. Getting more people on the inernet isn't just going to suddenly wipe out conservatives. Just as for everly liberal
blog there's a conservative one, there'll be a conervative homebrew movie about how bad a president Clinton was for every Liberal movie about how bad a president Bush Jr is(or was).
You made all my points for me about the barriers for entry being made cheaper.
The internet is an Equalizer for the flow of information, which is not the same thing as "Liberal Paradise".
Fredericton, New Brunswick has had this implemented since last autumn. Wireless G service is available for free throughout the entire downtown core courtesy of the city. They are slowly expanding the service area, too. I've used it on a friends notebook and it is blazingly fast.
University - a box of academia nuts.
I can tell you this, it will cost them a lot more than the initially $10 million. Is the city going to budget to maintain this service like they would water or other municipal utilities? I can tell you this, my water department are a bunch of idiots and I certainly would not want my city government running my internet access.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
First of all, I work in the convention business, providing Internet connectivity. Over the last 2 years, I have seen a rapid increase in interest to "provide wireless service". The problem of course, is that the ones who are asking are the CEOs and marketing droids that are just starting to discover this cool "Wi-Fi" stuff, and they want it.
Little do they know when everyone brings their own access point, all setup for channel 6, and they are all crammed into a convention center, no one is getting any real data transferred.
My work has become increasingly more frustrating dealing with these clueless people, who insist that they MUST have wireless connectivity. Is there any practical reason? Nope (except for the exhibitors who actually have wireless products and are show-casing their products).
Most of us know that there are 6 channels for 802.11b, but not everyone knows that the neighboring channels conflict with each other. This means if you put an AP on channel 10, the other on 11, they are still stepping on each other's feet and the noise level will probably prevent any user from getting on.
I hope this is a well-thought out plan, instead of a "it would be cool if we..." kind of rush.
The end result is the same - citywide-WiFi, but it's paid for by the people who want to pay for it.
Better, educate them how to partition their traffic with some sort of QOS settings, so they can allocate half the bandwidth for themselves, and half for the community -- and subsidize them for providing this services.
For the Ammount of money i paid in wage and city taxes last year the LEAST they could do is cough up some free internet. Philadelphia one of the the highest (if not the highest) wage and city taxes in the nation. I actually moved out of the city into a neighboring county because the taxes were so high. Even if they gave me Free TV Internet, Water,Gas, etc. it would still be cheaper to live outside of the wage and city Tax.
I did read somewhere that these taxes would be lowered because of the new gambling laws recenlty enacted. This action, however would be slow and over ten year.
I do give Philadelphia credit however, because they have managed to attract some business to the area. I had to leave Pittsburgh because, no jobs were to be had.
Will this make it much easier for the government to monitor our email, VOIP, and IM? I think there are ISPs that only cooperate if there is a warrant to do so. What privacy will we have under this system if the city is more than happy to just cooperate with orgs like the FBI? Also, since this is a municipal service are we "virtually" give up our rights to privacy using it like walking out onto a public street?
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
I think it's been about two years since I've used one. Much less since I've seen one.
The eighteen-year-old sitting next to me knows how.
n/m
And they want to build a high rise for their new headquaters.
Thanks for the reality check - I was getting excited about the possibilites - But once again the dollar will win out.
They figure since they can't secure 'em they'll turn the tables.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
High taxes and ineffective government are why young professionals leave. Young professionals that need a job or roll their own business will more than likely end up anywhere From Mt. Laurel, NJ to King of Prussia, PA before they start a business or take a job in this over-taxed, over-regulated, poor-service, corrupt locality. This is just one more boondoggle that will enforce the trend AWAY from philly.
Why let private companies compete with one another to provide an affordable, quality service when you can just let Big Government hijack the industry and replace it with their own inefficient and inadequate service that everyone is compelled to pay for even if they don't want to use it?
Does it get any better than this? Where do I sign up?
Oh wait, I'm a taxpayer, I'm automatically signed u p. Lucky me.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Inside:
hmm, you're making every Tom Dick and Harry in the city want to go out and buy a wireless card and install it on their pc. You have to guess that 2/3 of the installs will be improperly protected and 1/10 will have open file sharing turned on. At least on cable and DSL connections most people have routers and NAT.
If they pull this off they'll likely be the model that starts a revolution in wireless internet access that will follow the footsteps of cell service.
If they don't It'll be rude awakening for the real security issues these days.
I have to wonder how long it will be till the wireless card companies start including easy and secure firewalling and nat into their adapters/drivers. I know it's not really their job to do so, but imagine the marketing on a "Secure Wireless Card".
You would overlook roads, sewer mains, snow removal, garbage pickup, and a million other 'little details' that you already pay people to take care of for you. You aren't paying taxes so much as you are paying rent.
Private solutions may be the best solutions, but private monopolies arent. They are worse than public sector companies because they measure their bottom line by profit, not results. They won't invest in large-scale projects like this, otherwise they would have built the telephone infrastructure, the railroads, the streets, the sewer systems, and a myriad of other things that needed to get done.
Private solutions are working now, because we built the infrastructure, then gave it to them to make money on. When the infrastructure has to be replaced, these private companies are going to go tits-up, we'll pay for it in taxes, and then they'll come out of the woodwork to take over and make a buck.
This reinvigorates the city's new "Filthadelphia is for Lovers" Travel and Tourism Marketing Campaign.
Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com
...just long enough to drive all the commericial ISPs out of business.
Then the benevolent city fathers, searching as always for ways to help "the children," will start levying taxes to support the "free" service.
"Free" Internet service will prove to be far more expensive than just paying for it.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I worked for the City of Philadelphia as a contractor for a year. I have no doubt that this is the pie in the sky dream that will not happen. There is no money, installation or support plan to this project/publicity stunt. They are so cash strapped it isn't even funny. The server room looks like something out of the early 70's. IT is just getting racks installed.
If I'm wrong and it does happen, look for the network to start failing immediately and having to take 6-8 weeks for something to get fixed and only after the appropriate bribes... I mean donations are received. Also look for the light post hubs to be missing soon after installation.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
As far as exposure to EMF goes, most people are getting far more EMF from common items such as alarm clocks, toasters, and hair dryers. Cell phones can transmit at far higher power levels than WiFi typically does, and you receive much more EMF from it due to your proximity. Very few of those people and groups say anything whcih makes sense.
They can make their opinions known at the polls, but should be ignored otherwise.
Oddly, the Arab league isn't happy. Go figure.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
I wonder how they'll plan to support the levels of usage they will get. With everyone in the city able to connect, they'll have to make sure their infrastructure can support large numbers of people making large downloads. Or end up with a potentially useless system.
Especially if say, there is an emergency somewhere and like with the blackout, or 9-11, everyone in the city goes online to look up information.
I would also hope that if they start using it for key city services, they provide a second network to them, so if everyone in the city is using the system, key services aren't brought to their knees.
I think it sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea and if they charge a fair price, which pays for the service, then taxes are not needed for maintance at all. It could be a great way to make city services more effecient and bring decent revenue to the city, however, they need to make sure they plan it right and consider some worst cases.
Exclusive access to the WiFi band by a single operating organization makes it a monopoly service. That is appropriate only for a government, or a government franchise outsourced to a highly regulated corporation. So this is a natural service for governments.
However, the bandwidth is insufficient to serve the public as end users. The NYC plan to which they refer is an extreme case. WiFi offers, at best (and only in theory), 110Mbps. On about 18,000 lampposts, that's about 134x134 across a 20mi x 20mi city, stretched too thin across just the surface, 800' apart; in NYC, that's about 1 per block (short blocks; 3 across the long blocks). Nevermind the interference from modern steel, and massive stone, buildings. The average height of a building in NYC is around 10 stories, 1000' high. Everyone would be within the signal range, which means each WiFi "cell" gets 555 people, for around 200Kbps. That's barely enough for a VoIP call. Now factor in all the real world reductions, and it's no longer enough for VoIP, or much of anything else.
A better use of the spectrum is to dedicate the bandwidth only to municipal services. City equipment like streetlights and other machinery is naturally already connected to wires, which can be used in BPL networks without needing quirky wireless. Emergency services, like police, fire and ambulance, could benefit from the mobile access, using their vehicles as routing base stations, with personnel carrying thin multimedia clients. And there would be no cries of "socialist competition" with entrepreneurs, or "corporate welfare" when the city sells out the publicly funded system for pennies on the dollar to a corporate successor, once the city proved the technology in the field, under the noses of the market.
Public WiFi has a place. Not as a link in your phone service, but as the same kind of infrastructure as the roads - a public infostructure accessible to all, with its costs shared by all who live and work in the community.
--
make install -not war
Before thinking about wi-fi, I expect my local government to concentrate on filling up all those potholes on the roads. There are far too important, insufficiently addressed problems like crime, high taxes, etc.
Bye, bye wi-fi, see you later, when philly becomes a better place to live.
I know I've heard about cell phones potentially emitting rays that are damaging. Would the level on this wireless system be so low as to not be an issue? Or is this going to be an action of the "pollute the water until enough people get sick so that lawyers get it stopped" kind?
Otherwise, why would so many be so polarized on many issues?
Human laziness comes to mind. So many are just idiots looking for a leader. Thinking makes their poor little heads hurt.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I just moved to Philly last week, and the cable internet service is expensive ~$45 a month. If your not a Comcast cable customer it's ~$52. Their cable service is a rip too, for the digital cable with the extended package (so get FoodTV, G4Tech, ESPN2) and HBO I't almost $80.
They do give you a good deal for the first 6 months. My internet is only $24.99, but it goes up to $45 after that. The service is spotty to. It cuts out for a few seconds every once in awhile, streaming video or audio is not great. Free wireless access would be awesome.
Fuck Comcast. Those assholes raise their rates at about 2 $ a month now with no end in site.
Broadcasting & Cable Editorial about Comcast.
U: phelps123
P: 321joe
(Thanks to BugMeNot for the login credentials)
~Philly
Philadelphia suffers from cronyism and a very high wage tax (3.9 percent for non-residents; over 4 for residents). It is dying for this reason and because it is not a conducive environment for business.
So yes, go ahead and spend money in an area where government has no business being in. It's called public libraries for Internet access.
While the area suffers because of high taxes.
The city is trying to make up for that football team that can't win any big games.
(go cowboys)
If you think
Than ease of use, increased productivity, or lower prices. Every American deserves a job and then we can increase productivity.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
I know there are problems with our government. But, you don't fix the problem by taking control from the band of raving psychopaths in government and handing it over to the raving psychopaths that are better known as corporations. Corporations are antisocial by their very nature, and must not be allowed to dictate public policy. They care about profits, and that's all they care about. Our government, on the other hand, can be pressured, and can change. Governments are not necessarily all bad, and the definition of government is vague enough that if one doesn't like something about his government, then he can change it.
Corporations, on the other hand, are by their very definition, by the very rules with which they are defined, a horrible way to organize a society. The idea of creating an institution with no accountability, except for the accountability it has to it's shareholders to make a profit, dooms corporations to exceedingly antisocial and immoral behavior.
So that's one 18 year-old. Don't you think that's not typically the case?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
According to The Wi-Fi Technology Forum - Wireless Internet Access and Global Roaming News 'The Wi-Fi Technology Forum/- Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) has announced that it will hold a national summit for local government officials on the topic of Wi-Fi and wireless technologies this fall in Corpus Christi, Texas. During the 2004 Metropolitan Mobile Wi-Fi Summit, October 13-15, 2004 local government technology leaders will meet to collectively develop the strategies and identify the next steps for implementing Wi-Fi networks in their communities.'
I live in Corpus Christi and have been in contact with key City staff involved in implementing a City-Wide wi-fi network in Corpus Christi (more about Corpus Christi wi-fi project). I have been told by City staffers that I will have access to cover the 'Metropolitan Mobile Wi-Fi Summit, October 13-15, 2004' so get ready for all the meaty details of this event. It will be interesting to interview attendees from other Cities considering the move to wi-fied city(s).
Also found this City of Corpus Christi press release at (http://www.cctexas.com). It may help explain some of the key points that interest the City of corpus Christ;
08/25/04 Work To Begin On Implementation Of Automated Meter Reading Pilot Program The City of Corpus Christi is gearing up for the first step in implementing a pilot program of a new automated meter reading system. City crews and contract workers will begin surveying two areas for the pilot program on Thursday morning, August 26, 2004 to determine the exact scope of work for the project. The first area stretches from Doddridge Street to Robert Drive between Ocean Drive and Alameda Street. The second focus area is bordered by Gollihar Road, Kostoryz Road, SPID and Ayers Street.
The survey will primarily involve gathering information about the number of water and gas meters in the two areas to determine how many of them will need to be replaced or retrofitted for automated meter reading devices. The initial survey is expected to continue through September 10, 2004. During that time, officials ask that residents keep in mind that crews will be visiting easements in the two areas. They also request that citizens help ensure that the easements are accessible by seeing to it that dogs are properly restrained while the survey is underway. The actual installation of the new meter reading devices for the pilot program is expected to begin next month. Officials say that once all the new equipment is in place, multiple meters will be able to be read with one device. And since every meter will be read twice a day, the system will eliminate the need to send out meter readers to handle every discrepancy that may be reported. In addition, customers will be able to go online and access the readings of their meters.
The evaluation of the pilot program should be finished by the end of November 2004. For more information, please contact; Leonard Scott, Municipal Information Systems Department 361-826-3772
I lost my sig...
Because you and the poster before you are at a high enough level that you can say this will or will not work, or if this is a stunt?
You worked in a building, in a server room - does that say the entire philly gov't is modeled after that building/room?
The gov't is pretty spread out, and there are many offices that have fairly high tech gear. Maybe not the LATEST tech - but tech that is still of decent quality, managed by competant staff members.
Before we start saying that it is going to come to a crash in 6-8 weeks after it goes live, lets give them a chance.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Yes, but the phrase I quoted was '...if you gave *anyone* under the age of 20...' ;-p (Actually, most would probably be able to figure it out given a couple minutes. At least those with basic problem solving skills. So maybe one or two percent.)
some network cards and routers and other network devices allow you to change your MAC.
Why not refund $10 million dollars back to taxpayers and let them buy their own goddamned wireless access? Fucking commies.
Graduate 1: "Where should we take our Carnegie Mellon degrees and enjoy life as young prfessionals?"
Graduate 2: "San Francisco is nice. Lots of tech there. Great weather. Lots of tech in northern Virginia. Or maybe Austin?"
Graduate 1: "Philly! Let's be successful bachelors in Philly!"
Graduate 2: "Um, dude, Philly is dirty. Auto insurance rates are sky high. It's been voted as the fattest city in the country. Summers are hot and humid, winters are cold and crappy. Their sports teams can't ever seem to get to the big game. The people are a bit rude...they even throw snowballs at Santa Clause."
Graduate 1: "They have WiFi"
Graduate 2: "I'm there!"
The previous dialog has been provided as a reality check for bright-eyed and bushy-tailed graduates and professionals. WiFi will not increase the quality of life in a city and draw people to it.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Do you think Comcast or the Baby-Bells will sit and look on from the sidelines? The Telecom industry already has the FCC in their pockets, will they let a bunch of free-access-for-all people deny them their lunch?
Obviously, I have mixed feelings. I feel a dramtic rise of education due to easy access to infiormation may be a benefit. But the current administration did a pretty good job of pissing away money already, must we make the people who actually pay taxes pay for the internet of those who don't? There was already a big problem here with gas companies wanting to charge paying customers a surcharge for the non-paying customers. Another problem is the city's current managing of their computer system. My g/f works for the sherrif's dept. and she gets sent home early all the time due to virus' and hack attempts Is the city going to do another poor job when they implement this idea.
Also, as some of you may know, Bush wanted to have broadband access for every american (not free) I find it odd that a democrat would use a republicans idea (ergo THIS IS GONNA RAISE TAXES)
Welcome to Philadelphia (the city of brotherly love) now leave!
.
FREE MUSIC FOR ALL!
.
I think it would probably be better for them to have a bunch of smaller wifi hotspots, arranged in such away that there is WiFi everywhere. so at least they can track someone down to a small area.
Thinking about the logistics of implementing such a huge network, it looks like a big waste of money, think about installing all those transmitters or access points on all those lamp posts, interconnecting them, how about maintaining them. Given the bungling nature of the city governments, I would not like them to undertake a much complicated and expensive project like this.
This is much different than laying pipes for utilities like water or gas, the nature of these remain same for decades. But that is not the case with wireless internet access technologies, what is good today might not be sufficient tomorrow, there is already news that some homes in Japan are going for 100Mbps broadband.
Instead of wasting money on wi-fi, it would be better to implement a better suited technology like Wi-Max for this purpose. This is expected to have much higher range (>50miles), which translates to much less infrastructure costs.
No, the Philadelphia of Cream Cheese fame is NOT Philadelphia in Penn's Wood, (you may more familiar with the Latin expression "Pennsylvania"). The Philadelphia of Cream Cheese fame is, in fact, Philadelphia, New York. And Philadelphia, New York was wireless for many years until electricity recently arrived. So there.
Only on Slashdot can you possibly find a single story that simultaneously manages to stimulate discussion about Wi-Fi, Ayn Rand, Meter Readers, and outsourcing to India.
I'm not sure if I love it here or hate it here.
Right, just like the increase and expansion of media outlets in the past decade has done. The internet, Fox News, Clearchannel Communications...yep, that sure has helped the liberal cause.
The only guarantee of increased communication is the wider dissemination of ideas. Good ideas catch the wave of public interest and flourish, while bad ideas flounder and die. This is as it should be. Liberal and conservative has nothing to do with it.
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
The alternatives to the mainstream media already exist, and people that want alternatives readily find them. Barriers to entry simply are not an issue with the media. Sure it may irritating to be bombarded by the Scott Peterson trial and all but thats why I read magazines like The Economist. If I was a right wing wackjob, I would get a subscription to National Review or watch Fox News listen to Rush on the air, and if I was a far left loon, I would be reading IndyMedia.
The local newsstand generally has all of these publications from all ends of the political spectrum. Hell, the Maoist international newspaper (which regularly denounces modern China as a far right regime that betrayed Mao's legacy) floats around where I live. While I do find sensationalism in the media irriating, I believe that this demonstrates that barriers to entry are simply not an issue. It might be different if you want to make a living, but frankly broadband will not help that.
Having said all that, assuming that I'm wrong and barriers to entry are an issue, why do you think that we will become more liberal? It seems that for every 60% tax ceiling universal healthcare type, you have a gun nut or a religious wacko.
On one hand, I'm all for anything that tries to break up the Verizon and Comcast strangleholds on broadband. On the other hand, my view of wireless access in the future is one based on competition.
With dialup access, all you needed was a local phone number to dial into. Dialup access was cheap for even the fastest speeds, and there were tons of services to chose from, big and small.
With Cable and DSL, the majority choice is either your local phone company or local cable company. You can go with another service, but they are almost always more expensive, sometimes twice as much, for the same speed and features. The service might be better, but the problem with that is you are still partly limited to that same phone or cable company for the quality of the connection.
Wireless opens that possibility up again, because it's just that... wireless! Companies can create their own wireless internet services and begin offering access over a wide area. Pick which service you want, just sign up, set your wireless card to their service, login, and wham, no installation, no mess. Installing my cable connection was expensive and riddles with fees for things I could have done myself but they required me to pay for.
I worry if a local government (especially one as fickle as Philadelphia) backs a network like this, it will be good for a time, but then grow stagnant, because the government doesn't work by competition, and housing and crime are far more important than wireless access to a politician. There won't be a push to keep the service good, people will look to cut costs, and then it will suck and stay that way for a while until the next big political or tech movement comes along.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Well, if you must be so damn literal...
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If they offer this for free then what is to stop people from committing crimes with this access? Spammers, child porn, hackers and other losers are sure to come out of the woodwork with free access. It's just way to easy. The bad people could even do the dirty deeds from thier own home without using a connection in thier name. We all know how great wireless security is.
All of these systems "work". We just need to ask who they "work" for, and what we mean by "works". The Soviet Union "worked" if all we care about is rapid industrialization, but can we say that it worked for the millions that were shot by Stalin and erased from history? No. Fascism "worked" if all we care about is bringing a country out of depression, but did it "work" for those in the concentration camps? No. Capitalism "works" for the CEO's, the Bill Gates, Ken Lays, etc., but does it "work" for the millions of homeless, the approximately 30% who live below the US poverty line, or, since we're talking about a global sytem, the millions of 3rd worlders working in sweatshops to boost corporate profits? The answer again, is no.
1. Give away free wifi.
2. ????????????????????
3. TAX REVENUE!!!
Seriously, though, free wifi would attract members of the (cough) creative class, who would then spend mad wack benjamins on cheese steaks at Geno's. It's not much of a stretch, really.
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
Sure, more leftist ideas will be accessible if people have the internet. But then again, there are a lot of well-trafficked rightwing sites on the internet as well (the whole 'digital brownshirt' thing Gore talked about, like an idiot). Just as the partisan war in the country has been fought out in pamphlets, newspapers, radio, and television, so too will it continue, idiotically, on the internet. Don't be so quick to celebrate one or the other side's triumph.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
The parent is a troll. I know this because I wrote it.
It's really sad to see a deliberately asinine troll modded to +5, Insightful. How blazingly stupid do I have to make these things before you idiots will notice that you're all all bobbing your empty little heads and group-thinking along with a joke?
Not exactly great news for the commercial ISPs in the area... making considerable capital investments to offer a valuable service and then have your tax dollars used to put you out of business is SO not right!
Perhaps the government should do and own everything? Private enterprise is evil afterall... should be outlawed... oh wait... has this not been tried before???
You wrote:
On the other hand, this would also give the aspiring Rush Limbaughs of the world the ability to get their message out there.
Fine. Problem is that when it comes to widespread mass media, there IS no TRUE liberal counterpart to Limbaugh. Air America? Please! That is just the Democratic party talking there, and the Democratic party aint leftist, at least not when it comes to economics.
You wrote:
But I don't think that the general public has any problem getting messages from either the left or the right at this point in time. Otherwise, why would so many be so polarized on many issues?
The public is getting messages from the Right (GOP) and the right-center (Democrats), but there IS NO Left in America. If there is a left, tell me where on the major tv channels we have people talking consistently about universal healthcare, about welfare for all poor people (not just welfare moms), about raising the top tax bracket rates back up above 60% (they are at 35% now for earned, and 15% for unearned); where are all the liberals talking in the mainstream media about taxing wealth; about cutting the military budget in half??? These are ALL things that are in place in all the other industrialized, Western countries. Why not here?
Poll after poll shows that 70% or more of Americans want universal, tax-funded healthcare. But where does the media talk about it?
There is no economic left in America; the media and the politicians are perfectly to define leftism as all about gay rights, and abortion and gun control, and all the other "acceptable" liberal issues.
But when most of the country is on broadband, I can promise you, *I* and others will be out there with our homebrew movies and documentaries on p2p--THEN there will be a leftist voice in America.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Has anyone considered the security risks in an undertaking that large? People don't secure their pc's on wireless home networks. Wirelessly linking that many uneducated users would be a hackers dreamland.
*Note- I'm not anti-labor, but I think the Philly area takes it way to far*
The unions are going to screw this one up. If the access point near you needs servicing, plan on waiting until the next holiday when they'll schedule repair in order to get double overtime.
They discover a killer visus was unleashed att he corner of Main and Sixth at 6pm. Who cares? Unless they *happen* have video surveilience of that area as well they have no clue who that was. I mean, look at how hard the cops have tracking down who made a call at a payphone at such an such a time. Now expand that so all you have ia a 1/8 mile radius at such and such a time. Good luck.
Better yeat Is it LEGAL?
Never mind that in the earlier article the cop couldn't actually quote a statute to look up, either federal or state- but if not using the library's access outside, what about when the hotspot is the entire city?
Also, what would be the effect on other 2.4ghz equipment, like cordless phones and X10 cameras?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
from the article: Corpus Christi, Texas, has been experimenting with a system covering 20 square miles that would be used (for now) only by government employees.
Or so they *think* it's only been used by government employess. Bwahahahahaha!!!!
Michael Moore
If there is a left, tell me where on the major tv channels we have people talking consistently about universal healthcare, about welfare for all poor people (not just welfare moms), about raising the top tax bracket rates back up above 60% (they are at 35% now for earned, and 15% for unearned); where are all the liberals talking in the mainstream media about taxing wealth; about cutting the military budget in half???
They are not on major TV channels FOX news style, but they are out there, reading magazines like the Nation etc.
Poll after poll shows that 70% or more of Americans want universal, tax-funded healthcare.
Did you know that 99% of all statistics are made up? I'm willing to accept that 70% of people are in principle in favor of universal health care, but I think that it is nonsense that people really want to switch en-masse to a European style system, especially when considering that insured (keyword insured) Americans get better coverage than they do in most European countries.
But when most of the country is on broadband, I can promise you, *I* and others will be out there with our homebrew movies and documentaries on p2p--THEN there will be a leftist voice in America.
Followed shortly by the KKK, gun nuts and other people on the right.
Phil Donahue recently had a show on MSNBC that was exactly that, but it got cancelled because not enough people watched it. This is probably because liberals are less likely to watch TV than conservatives.
Those third-world "sweatshop" workers chose what they're doing, because the alternative (subsistence farming) is worse. It sucks to be them, but without capitalism it would suck to be them even more.
Starvation, you say? Sorry, but big bad capitalist agribusiness has boosted food production well beyond any levels that were even remotely conceivable 100 years ago. That's who's feeding the world these days. Are you aware that farmers in the third world routinely go out of their way to buy GM seed on the black market, in spite of the bans imposed by corrupt local governments? It's more productive. They want to grow more food, sell more food, eat more food, and have a better life -- the only people who object to them having a better life are kleptocrats in the third world, and affluent leftists in the first world.
The "global system" you're talking about is pure fantasy in any case. What you've got is a global non-system. People do as they damn well please (that's what you object to, right? Your fix is necessarily a centralized, dictatorial system). Corrupt, kleptocratic third-world governments interfere with the growth of private businesses. They grant monopolies. They demand spectacular bribes and kickbacks. Government interference is harmful far more often than not. Look at the Pacific Rim. Compare Hong Kong and Taiwan to the PRC.
And by the way, Stalinism didn't only "not work" for the millions shot or starved directly; it didn't work for anybody else either. The Soviet Union was a catastrophic mess. It took six months on a waiting list to get a new pair of shoes, and the shoes you finally got were nearly worthless -- because the government was the only shoe supplier and they forbade competition. Standard of living, in material terms, has a lot to do with HOW MUCH STUFF YOU HAVE, and HOW GOOD IT IS. If very little stuff gets produced, nobody has very much stuff. If the small amount of stuff they get is crap, then what little they get is going to be crap. That's how it worked in the USSR. Simple enough for you? Of course, there are intangible aspects to one's standard of living, too: Liberty, equality, and all that. The USSR scored spectactularly poorly on those.
Free-market capitalism with a democratic government does not make the world a paradise (nor, unlike all world-saving genocide schemes, does it promise to) -- but free-market capitalism in a democracy provides more freedom, and better quality of life, for more people, than anything else on offer. That's a fact. It doesn't only work for Bill Gates; it works at least reasonably well for almost all of us. The fundamental difference between that system and the shitty ones is that it has actually produced societies that most people liked to live in, and the others haven't. That is a very profound difference: Free market/democratic societies have achieved the only sane goal any of this nonsense can possibly have. In real life. No joke.
No, we don't need to try another wild-eyed "experiment" like communism or fascism just in case murdering a few million more people will make the world a paradise.
Yes, I know you're young, frightened, not very bright, and full of hate and resentment because you have no skills. I know you think the world owes you a living: You firmly believe that the Good Lord created me as your slave, obligated to work to support you. You'd feel better if all your paranoid fantasies about Evil Corporations were true, and you think you'd feel best of all if you could have a hand in killing a few million people in the course of trying out some psychotic new economic theory based on some slight variation on the same old theme of "ethical" dictatorship (or have you gone back to Marx, perhaps? Are you one of those geniuses who thinks we should try that one again, with some meaningless cosmetic alteration in the rhetoric that'll magically make it work this time?). I know how you feel, but you're an idiot, and that's that.
This is one of those utopian ideas which sounds great on paper.
However in practice, I have never seen a government agency offer anything resembling "good service". (Fire & Police protection excepted) Our city runs it's own trash disposal service, & compared to the service by the commercial firm in the suburbs, it totally sucks. Most city folk would rather pay for good service than get lousy "free" service. However they don't get that choice.
I'm as big a technology buff as anyone, but being a Philadelphia resident myself I'd have to say that there are better places for ten million dollars to go. Philly schools are among the poorest, underfunded, and underperforming schools in the country. In general, the city is very poor, and we have huge ghettos that cover most of the North and West parts of the city. Making these residents pay the brunt of the taxes to support the system (many of whom are too poor to own computers) is unfair. Their tax money could be better spent going to the public school system to help their children's future.
I think that it is nonsense that people really want to switch en-masse to a European style system, especially when considering that insured (keyword insured) Americans get better coverage than they do in most European countries.
Yep. Try asking with these questions in a poll:
I predict that most Americans would answer "Yes", "No", "Only a little" and "No". People who have insurance like the idea of government health care because they think it will be just as good, and cheaper. Except that it will be worse and will cost at least as much.
I can only speak for me but I worked in their IT dept at city hall and down the block in the SEPTA building where the rest of the IT staff resides. That's the spread. I brought my own equipment to work with since the PCs were not able to handle what we had to do. Like I said the racks were coming in and there was an attempt at organization. The managers I spoke with knew it was old and were trying to bring the city up to speed but it is a slow process. To order in equipment took months. Getting it installed wasn't too bad but they aren't oozing with tech staff there. Getting the money was the biggest issue.
Now if you take that whole environment into consideration and theorized on the city's ability to setup something that big. You would come to a similar conclusion.
Of course in another thread regarding Comcast's position on the whole possibility I thought that Comcast might be in position to partner with the city to accomplish this. I don't see them doing this on their own even with a consultant company. Too much $$$. They were having issues meeting the payroll!
Stepping out of my pessimistic role, I would love to see this happen!
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
Philly already has an impressive track record on city run utilities. Anyone want to bet that if this ever gets off the ground, it will follow the well worn and clearly marked path so often used in this part of the country? Or will they go the much simplier 10 years and 300 million $ over budget path?
Wouldn't it be easier to allow only HTTP traffic only? Why would you want to allow other types of traffic to be availble? If it's for public use they shouldn't be doing anything more than surfing the web. You don't want people to check their bank records or make online purchases on a public network.
Huh, anyone else read that as "un-ionized"...must be from all of the RF energy floating around.
Oh, ok, my mic is on...
Um... why does everyone think that -- to produce anything worthy of watching -- is that you need a video camera? Do these same people spend all-day Sunday at Grandmas watching home videos?
You can spend years grappling the concepts of story, directing, camera work, lighting, sound, acting, editing, post-audio, encoding -- and still make a sucky picture (I'd hyperlink that, but with too many Hollywood choices... anyway...) --
And this still doesn't account for how you'll get in-front of the eyeballs of these people, especially when ten million other vidz are floating around, marketing rulez d00d...
Anyway, I don't think Hollywood is quivering in their boots -- not yet, anyway.
> the city would likely offer the service either for
> free...
Really? You mean, the city is going to quit taxing
its citzens?!
That will make life a lot easier for kiddies and virus-writers.
Problem is that when it comes to widespread mass media, there IS no TRUE liberal counterpart to Limbaugh.
As others have pointed out, it's not for lack of trying. I guess the reason is that there either isn't really a mass audience for this, or that no one with sufficient talent has stepped up to the challenge. I believe that Rush's own theory is that you can get most of what his Leftist counterpart would bring to the table through the main stream media.
The public is getting messages from the Right (GOP) and the right-center (Democrats), but there IS NO Left in America.
Well, this is probably a matter of opinion, because from my perspective it's the GOP who is center-right, and the Democrats who are Left, but I suppose I'm about as far right as you are left (there, now you can mod me down:).
There is no economic left in America; the media and the politicians are perfectly to define leftism as all about gay rights, and abortion and gun control, and all the other "acceptable" liberal issues.
I basically agree, although I wouldn't say that it doesn't exist (you seem to be here, and I'm sure you have like minded friends). It's just that it's been [properly, IMNSHO] marginalized. And I don't think that an "all the other industrialized, Western countries" argument will get you very far (if all your friends were jumping off a bridge...). The Economic Left's ideas all tend to sound really nice and noble, but the bad unintended consequences generally outweigh the good intentions.
Poll after poll shows that 70% or more of Americans want universal, tax-funded healthcare.
I'm usually suspicious of things like issue polls, since the phrasing of the question can really skew the results (Lies, damn lies and statistics, as Mark Twain said). Also, they probably don't take a very comprehensive view of an issue. If 70% of Americans were really that behind something like Universal Health Care, we'd probably be farther along with implementing it, instead of the death by a thousand cuts way that we're going about it (i.e., Medicare keeps growing, so how long do you think it will take before it grows beyond its current target demographic).
But when most of the country is on broadband, I can promise you, *I* and others will be out there with our homebrew movies and documentaries on p2p--THEN there will be a leftist voice in America.
Why not right now? I promise not to watch either way. :)
JOIN US FOR PONG!
This story strikes fear into our hearts. How can we compete in a monopoly market against our own city?
While I agree that citywide wireless is great, I would much rather have it brought about by supply and demand in a free market economy rather than sit by and watch my own tax dollars being used to put me out of business.
-TR
I've been paging though the comments on this article, and nearly every comment that points out that this is not a free service (it's taxpayer-funded), or that taxpayers should do this privately, had been either ignored by the mods or given negative moderation, usually "redundant". One guy pointed out what this really is, communism, and he got modded to 0. By contrast, all the positive mods appear to be going to those who are saying what a great idea this would be.
Ok, I'm done talking. You can come for me now.
I am MuchTall
Are they also going to offer working wifi drivers for those not using Windows or Mac? NDIS isn't an option for some of us. What good is free access if it comes at the price of proprietary binaries wrapped in a second rate porting layer with reduced functionality and performance? There are wifi chipsets that Linux and *BSD support natively, but they are no longer being used. The wifi manufacturers seem to operating under the "chipset of the day" model, so you never know what you're getting until your you OS craps an error message at you.
Or to put a political/ideological spin on things, why should taxpayers be footing the bill for encouraging the poor to use proprietary operating systems?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
They're using that money to ensure that this citywide wifi never becomes reality. It's just a cost of doing business that they're happily passing on to you. Think of it as a licensing fee - if they don't pay it, they'll lose their license to bill you you every month!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
or Vietnam, for that matter...
>Those third-world "sweatshop" workers chose what they're doing, because the alternative (subsistence farming) is worse. It sucks to be them, but without capitalism it would suck to be them even more.
Who gets to decide what the "alternatives" are? In this case, the power isn't in the hands of those making the "choice" but those who decide what the "choice" is.
>Starvation, you say? Sorry, but big bad capitalist agribusiness has boosted food production well beyond any levels that were even remotely conceivable 100 years ago. That's who's feeding the world these days.
Ahem, you mean government subsidized agribusiness. A business that, with government funding, is able to destroy any competition by artificially lowering prices. It's easy to win when you break the rules...
>Are you aware that farmers in the third world routinely go out of their way to buy GM seed on the black market, in spite of the bans imposed by corrupt local governments?
I'm aware of a lie in the form of a question when I see it.
>It's more productive. They want to grow more food, sell more food, eat more food, and have a better life -- the only people who object to them having a better life are kleptocrats in the third world, and affluent leftists in the first world.
I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere object to people having a better life, even if they secretly wish that it were so. I agree, they want to grow more food, but are run out of business by state subsidized US agribusiness. Thus leaving them the "choice" of working as wage slaves.
>The "global system" you're talking about is pure fantasy in any case.
I'm not sure you're talking about. I'm not sure what you think I've been reading, or what you think my ideas are.
>What you've got is a global non-system. People do as they damn well please (that's what you object to, right? Your fix is necessarily a centralized, dictatorial system).
I disagree, and I don't think you could prove this if you wanted to. As far as people doing what they please, I think that you must be living in a bubble if you think that people just do whatever they want. I don't think you can find a case of that anywhere. Even in relatively industrialized societies, choices are constrained by a number of factors. In less industrialized societies, choices are constrained to an even greater extent, with more choice given to those with more money, of course.
>Corrupt, kleptocratic third-world governments interfere with the growth of private businesses. They grant monopolies. They demand spectacular bribes and kickbacks. Government interference is harmful far more often than not. Look at the Pacific Rim. Compare Hong Kong and Taiwan to the PRC.
Compare Taiwan to any 3rd world country. They're doing extremely well, partially because they ignored the advice given to them by the US, which was to open their markets and avoid subsidizing them. Instead, they chose to subsidize their markets, and build them rationally, which is exactly how the US built their industry.
It really depends on what you are looking at. You can find corrupt governments, and then you can find responsive ones. You get rid of the corrupt ones and try to create ones that are accountable.
You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that part of the reason that these governments stifle their own private industries, is because there is intense pressure from multinational conglomerates to open up the borders to "trade". Part of the reason corrupt governments stay in power is because of US military industry. Brazil doesn't manufacture machine guns, or tanks, or helicopters, we do.
>And by the way, Stalinism didn't only "not work" for the millions shot or starved directly; it didn't work for anybody else either.
If you want to deny history you can. Their economy did very well until about the 1960's. If it hadn't produced anything, or wasn't able to keep up tec
I agree that on the back-end of things the gov't will be slow to respond to upgrades of any sort. This issue has been publicized and made into a big hooplah - that will give political pressure to speed things up - and when the pressure is there things happen. While I do not see this rolling out very quickly, it will happen in the near future, assuming companies like Comcast and Verizon don't manage to shoot it down.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I dunno--suppose an entire city were to buy their broadband access through them...those wireless access points have to connect to the Internet somehow, though some sort of provider.
Plus, the expensive and inconvenient hassles of tech support get offloaded on to the city.
~Idarubicin
Do we really want the government to compete with private enterprise?
How would you feel if you just spent millions installing wi-fi equipment in Philly? And hired employees to manage it?
Do we want the government jumping in and taking over these kinds of things? When does it get upgraded? Have you ever seen a government-owned cable company? It really becomes a corrupt monopoly. It truly is one of the most deplorable things. Do a google search for government owned cable companies. Dig deep. Listen to what the subscribers say if you want to stay current. How do you think the government could run a Wi-Fi network? Politicians appoint committees to "research" and spend money. They hire consultants for millions of dollars, and tell them exactly what the taxpayers have been telling them for years. Government (and mafia-controlled) commissioner(s) sit back and issue press releases. Nothing gets done, yet the government wastes billions on contracts that the private sector wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
Then, when it's all done, someone like Comcast comes in and sues because it infringes on their rights to operate a business.
Meanwhile, taxpayers live with the same junk they had last year, and the year before that.
Government-owned "businesses" rarely work because they try to please everyone all the time, and they rarely please anyone some of the time. Water, power, sewer are the exceptions.
Ok, let's look at it this way:
How many people think that the government can do a good job?
If you said yes, when was the last time you were at the DMV?
Why don't you go to a government doctor? How about going to a government emergency room?
How about getting government medical insurance? How about letting the government decide on the best way to treat a disease for you or your family members?
How about government housing?
Lastly, what do you do when there's a problem on a holiday, or at night, or on a weekend? Or after 4pm? Let's say you started a business, and you depend on that Wi-Fi to stay up and running? What kind of service guarantees are you going to get? Imagine calling the City of Philadelphia and trying to get something fixed?
I can't believe that people are excited about this. The government is probably the last provider I'd trust.
Lastly, what happens in a few years (or months) when the politicians are short of cash for their social agenda, and they decide they need "new revenue streams?" Taxes. And not just a property tax levy. It'll be use taxes. Suddenly, you're going to have to register to keep access. Someone will monitor your activity. You'll pay by the megabyte. You'll pay by the clock. You'll pay for prime time use. You'll pay more for certain sites or types of communication.
Who trusts a politician? Anyone? They're right up there with lawyers.
And you think this will attract "young professionals?" Businesses with jobs attract young professionals. Cool stuff to do attracts young professionals. Good schools, museums, restaurants, sports events, crime-free neighborhoods attract young professionals.
-- No sig for you!
well, considering philly is one of the largest citys in the country.. i could hardly imagine that this would go without a few hangbups. some of which are:
microwave ovens, cellphones, cordless phones, and ham radios. and that is just the technical side. they also have to consider distance, and the money that it would cost. every ~300ft they would have to have a high gain hop.. thats a lot of money, for what? "free wifi" haha. please.
Who on Earth came up w/ the numbers? $10m for deployment? $1.5m for annual maintenance? These figures are so ridiculously low (especially for on-going costs) it is laughable. Do they think everyone's device is going to work on the 1st try? With no assistance from tech support? I'm so flustered I can't write clearly. The 'committee' doesn't even have any technology people on it. WPCS is like the nation's leading large-scale WiFi installation company, and right outside the city, but is anyone from there on the committee? No. As a private real estate developer, I looked into deploying a wireless lan to cover part of University City (West Philly - where Penn is) about a year ago. There were a number of reasons we didn't do it. Tech support and security are incredibly complex (expensive), and the technology is still evolving too fast to attract private investment.
Does anyone who has experience with this sort of large-scale network think $1.5m for ongoing costs will be enough? If they charge $15/month, would this even cover the cost of tech support & security (and yes there needs to be security - we don't want Philly to become the origin of all spam do we)? Remember, the idea is that it is covering 135 miles, 90% of which is, to say it nicely, technologically un-adept people. If they charge for it, I think that will eliminate the whole point of it anyway.
You guys see nothing wrong in tax money being used to compete with private enterprise? I, for one, don't like the idea of a government entity using public money to put out of business private enterprise. If the current wireless rates are too high, competition will solve that problem soon enough. And there's no record, in my opinion, of a government entity doing something for less cost or with less resources than private. Why is this a good idea?
There was another city that tried to build their own infrastructure for internet connectivity and they got sued.
Apparently the local Telcos and Cable companies decided that their government mandated monopolies were being infringed upon when this particular municipality did for themselves with their own money what the companies found unprofitable and refused to offer.
Arguably Philadelphia might have more clout than "just some town" but still aren't they pushing the same buttons and expecting a different outcome?
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
Philadelphia City - 135 square miles
802.11b range - 300 foot circle, or 0.01 square miles
To cover Phili, you would need 13,500 APs, minimum.
Population of Phili - 5 million people
@13,500 APs, you would have 370 people per AP, much above the 32 user max capacity, but I doubt more than 10% of the people would be online at once (is this crazy?)
End user bandwidth if all 32 users on an AP - ~150kbps.
I think $10 million is OK for the APs themselves, but no other telecom infrastructure. To do wireless AP to AP routing, we would need to use up ever more bandwidth...
Wow! I guess my car was FREE!! too (after paying $20,000)!
Or that bowl of Wheaties I had for breakfast -- FREE!! (after paying about $0.80 for 1/5 of a regular-sized box).
Wait a sec, gasoline is FREE!!!! too! (after spending $1.95/gallon)
Wake up Slashdolts. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Learn some goddamn fundamental economics.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Reminds me of something Benjamin Franklin would have done, if he were alive today. Everything I read/watched about him spoke of his desire to increase the standard of living through public resources.
...the URL in your sig is not fully qualified and is, hence broken. You might go to your user preferences page and make sure you've inserted the "http://" in your href parameter.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
What'cha squealing and shrieking about Iraq and Vietnam for? If you can find a Special Magic Voodoo Marx Incantation that'll magically erase war from reality, you'll be doing better than any real Marxist who ever gained power (or anybody else, for that matter). Sorry, kid. War seems to be a constant. Even if you could achieve your dream of reducing the entire world to some kind of Year Zero nightmare (Pol Pot, remember? No? Read some history sometime), people would still try to take each other's stuff, and they'd still organize to do it.
Who gets to decide what the "alternatives" are? In this case, the power isn't in the hands of those making the "choice" but those who decide what the "choice" is.
Gibberish. Choice A is subsistence agriculture. They get that for free. Nothing you can do about that except kill them. Other choices might be, what, the Army? Yeah, everybody's got an army. Nothing you can do about that, either. Then there's small-scale local service industry stuff (somebody runs the local store), banditry, prostitution, etc. These choices are inherent in the fact that these folks are alive and breathing. All the anti-globalism ideology in the world won't change that.
The choice you object to is working in a shitty factory, which the Satanic Foreign Rentiers provide. If that choice weren't there, nobody would be able to take it. But no matter how much desperately-needed foreign exchange the Satanic Foreign Rentiers cruelly and sadistically pump into the local economy, they still can't stop anybody from poking a damn seed into the ground. Nor are the Big Bad capitalists resonsible for the way the country was before they got there. You're so obsessed with your dictatorial left-wing control fantasies that you really seem unable to comprehend the fact that people even can make their own decisions, and that effects can have causes other than The Evil White People Fucking Everything Up.
Do you really think any place in this world was ever a paradise? That's a fantasy.
government subsidized agribusiness. A business that, with government funding, is able to destroy any competition by artificially lowering prices.
Nonsense. Agribusiness is able to realize massive, massive economies of scale. Look up figures for productivity per acre. Orders of magnitude, baby. And government farming subsidies are of the turn-back-the-clock, support-the-family-farms variety in the US and Europe. Given a level playing field, small-scale farming would have ceased to exist in the first world decades ago. That would have been a shame, on some level, because it's always sad when traditions vanish, but if it's that or hunger... Let's eat! I'm sorry, but there are people starving in this world. To cling to quaint customs at their expense is wacky by any standards -- inlcuding the "let's make a fast buck" standards of capitalists who want to sell food to those hungry people.
Part of the reason corrupt governments stay in power is because of US military industry. Brazil doesn't manufacture machine guns, or tanks, or helicopters, we do.
And we buy civilian aircraft from Embraer. Protectionism is stupid. Deal. What this has to do with corrupt governments, I cannot begin to imagine. My best guess is that you think that the Brazilian government stays in power by force, which is a unique and mystical commodity available on the open market only from Smith & Wesson and Lockheed. Are you trying to claim that Brazilians are somehow genetically incapable of making guns? Or of making airplanes with guns on them? I doubt that very much, especially the latter, since they make unarmed aircraft just fine. Even if they were somehow unable to make this stuff, they could buy it from somebody else. The Soviets sold an incredible amount of weapons, and simply gave away an equally incredible amount, all of it without any taint of capitalism. Your remarks on this subject are as off-topic as the
We should start a pool guessing how long until Slashdot reports that the City of Philadelphia has been K-Lined from Undernet and issued a UDP.
The subject says it all.
Uh oh, I didn't read the Fine Artice or the OTHER Fine Article.
How the heck 802.11 mesh network is going to scale city-wide (I guess it'll consist of houndreds/thousands of nodes) ?!
echo "getuid(){return 0;}" > e.c; gcc -shared -o e.so e.c; LD_PRELOAD=./e.so sh
I have one question... lets pretend that this does happen... are there any issues in terms of scale? If so, what are they?
that's off topic???????????
rewriting history since 2109
squealing shrieking Special Magic Voodoo Marx Incantation, magically, kid, Year Zero nightmare (Pol PotRead some history sometime, Gibberish. Nothing you can do about that except kill them. Satanic Foreign Rentiers, Satanic Foreign Rentiers, Big Bad capitalists, dictatorial left-wing control, fantasies, unable to comprehend, The Evil White People Fucking Everything Up. Nonsense. stupid. dumbass. you object to economic freedom just as fanatically as you object to all the others. Dumbass, your implied belief that Marxism is "rational". All those people doing as they please, nobody taking orders from you. Here we encounter the source of my conviction that you're an idiot: The doctrine of malign equivalency. bug-eyed undergraduate squawking probably merits, dumbest idea I've ever heard in my life.
Those were the words that I thought were interesting. I just thought that they were worth highlighting. I think that they were actually some of the more convincing parts of your argument. It would go something along the lines of:
1. Make irrelevant statements that distract from the main argument, aren't backed up by fact, etc.
2. Punctuate with insult.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Of course, most of your arguments fall apart without the insults. There isn't much there. However, I will take a moment to address the malign equivalency part of your argument. If the Soviet Union started talking about how bad the Nazis were when their crimes were pointed out, would we take them seriously? Of course not. I don't think that we're as bad as the Soviets, at least not inside our borders. But, that's an awefully, pathetically low standard that you've set for us. I think we're capable of better. Unless you believe that being better than the Soviet dungeon is a great accomplishment. Also, I never said the Soviet Union was prosperous compared to the US, I was comparing them to Brazil, which is a fair comparison, since both Brazil and former USSR were in the same spot economically in 1910. Comparing a country that was barely 3rd world status in 1910 to the US isn't exactly fair. Finally, and this is the final part of my argument, I said that even though they were propserous for a while, it wasn't an argument for them. Please pay attention.
This actually isn't anything new. I live in Fredericton New Brunswick Canada. We've had free wireless access throughout the city for a couple of months now. http://www.teamfredericton.com/fred-ezone01.asp Gotta Love Canada! :)
I LIKE TOAST!!!
Personally I think this is a bad idea...it's socialism. And it's unnecessary. I'd say 50% of the people who used Wifi in Philly would probably be out-of-towners, or at even out-of-staters, considering how close to other states Philly is. Let government do what it needs to, and do it well, and no more. Rather than increase taxes to pay for a massive wifi network, (all the hotspots, etc.) let the taxes be used by citizens to buy their own, the way they want. Besides. This would eliminate chalking!!
I am all for free wireless internet. I expected more governments to provide internet access as a standard community service. The bureacracy moves slow enough that the technology has improved before it became standard.
But government-controlled internet access allows easy censorship by the government. Check how China deals with the internet. Remember that Pennsylvania, the State that contains Philadelphia, has already tried to censor the internet by forcing commercial ISPs to block websites. That had a happy ending, but what if the government is the ISP? How long would the site-blocking remain secret? How long before the government ISP stops once it becomes known? The commercial ISPs did not want to block because of the expense, and possible loss of customers. (Actual cost does not matter; it cost more than not doing it.)
The Internet is becoming the only media. It can provide phone service, television shows, movies, news, weather reports, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and much more. It will become the primary method of distribution for all information. Do you want the government to control your access to all media? Do you want it to track what you are reading?
Do you want the government to track your internet usage? Commercial ISPs delete their usage records to avoid privacy issues. Comcast, the Philadelphia cable company, got vilified because they were caching websites. How will the privacy contingent react when the government controls internet access?
That said, the convenience of ubiquitous wireless service will probably override any privacy concerns. This is the place where the public will allow their purchases to be tracked in exchange for a minor discount, or just a chance to win a few dollars.
(I live in the Philadelphia suburbs, but that is not relevant to this post.)
I spend my life entertaining my brain.