San Fran Mayor Declares Wireless for All

How...? by Poleris · 2004-10-24 02:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is this mayor going to pay for this.

Re:How...? by Dr.+Evil · 2004-10-24 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, the taxpayers will. The mayor's friends will get the contracts though.
Re:How...? by jav1231 · 2004-10-24 02:12 · Score: 1

Exactly! The people will have to pay for it. But hey! It's for a good cause. Think of all the good it will do. I mean, the real good!
Re:How...? by (SM)+Spacemonkey · 2004-10-24 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

And pay the taxpayers shall. What could be the possible benefits to this? You need a computer to access the internet. I would awesome those who have a computer one are on average better off socio-economically than those who want one. This barrier to access (computer) itself prevents universal wireless from enhance equality, which is what I see as a major part of any governments role. Further many people (not just politicans) see this magic causal link between technology and better economy, educated populous, etc. However the internet is just a tool. It is as likely to be abused as it is to be used to help. A far better idea is to give ISPs incentives to lower their fees. Then again, only after you spend the money on education, health and a whole gamut of things more important than internet access.
Re:How...? by bigman2003 · 2004-10-24 02:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

And how many people who live in the city of San Francisco cannot afford a computer?

The median income is $74,000 per year.

San Francisco is a fairly expensive place to live, there are not a lot of poor people there. I'm sure they are only concerned with the people who actually have an address- not homeless people, who don't pay taxes, or vote.

Then again- cities spend a lot of money on streets, traffic lights, etc. And not everyone has a car...

--
No reason to lie.
Re:How...? by (SM)+Spacemonkey · 2004-10-24 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then again- cities spend a lot of money on streets, traffic lights, etc. And not everyone has a car...
Traffic lights and such exist for safety as much as anything else. They also help people without cars, ever j-walked in peak hour? Perhaps internet give security for democracy by allowing free access to information. In that case I propose spending more money on libraries, with internet access. But I suppose libraries aren't sexy enough for a politican. Now wireless! That gets votes.
Re:How...? by bigman2003 · 2004-10-24 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

So city tax money can only be spent if it helps out the lowest common denominator? What about the other 99.99% of the residents (those paying taxes)?

--
No reason to lie.
Re:How...? by autarkeia · 2004-10-24 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

San Francisco has a ridiculously high poor and homeless population. It's truly obscene. However, you can bet money that the mayor is thinking much more about the poor and the homeless and the agencies that support them than he is about rich Pacific Heights Ladies Who Lunch. Google for "Gavin Newsom" and see what the guy stands for, and what's he's done for San Francisco. He's pretty cool.

The median income is so high because there are so many people here with so much money. "Poor" people here make more money than "poor" people in other areas, though, largely due to higher-than-federal minimum wage laws. Still, there are huge swaths of San Francisco that are "poor," and the mayor has focused a large part of his administration on serving the poor and the homeless.
Re:How...? by Lshmael · 2004-10-24 03:55 · Score: 1

Google for "Gavin Newsom" and see what the guy stands for, and what's he's done for San Francisco. He's pretty cool.

Too bad he's a replicant.
Re:How...? by geg81 · 2004-10-24 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative

The median income is so high because there are so many people here with so much money.

If the median is $74000, it makes no difference whether the people above the median all make $75000 or $7.5m, the median will be unaffected.
Re:How...? by geg81 · 2004-10-24 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative

And how many people who live in the city of San Francisco cannot afford a computer? The median income is $74,000 per year.

That's probably because the median income only counts those who are actually employed. But San Francisco has a large population of unemployed, illegals, and/or homeless. Those people could be helped quite a bit by widespread and cheap Internet access.

Note that in those statistics median household income is only slightly above the national median, while the median income (i.e., the income of those employed) is considerably higher.
Re:How...? by magarity · 2004-10-24 04:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

San Francisco has a ridiculously high poor and homeless population. It's truly obscene

Transient homeless migrate to whereever they get the most handouts. It's a real problem here in Denver as well. They know that a lot of people in this area give handouts so they flock here. Same with SFO. See your own last sentence:

the mayor has focused a large part of his administration on serving the poor and the homeless

Let me guess: this a focus on shelters and free meals? I bet if it was a serious transition to work program, they'd flee to other parts.
Re:How...? by magarity · 2004-10-24 04:37 · Score: 1

Anything you think is expensive now, just wait til the government provides it for "free". See esp: health care.
Re:How...? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 05:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, Newsom was elected on a platform of cutting cash benefits and actually enforcing the panhanding laws. (Most of the "homeless" bugging the tourists aren't really represenative of the population.)
Re:How...? by gcaseye6677 · 2004-10-24 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

This article may show some insight into the reasons why there were so many homeless people in the first place in S.F. and why the numbers might be going down soon. I couldn't believe the city gives cash handouts to the homeless. The money they give out is not enough to rent even the cheapest housing in the San Francisco area, but it is enough to fuel one hell of a drug binge, which regularly kills many homeless people every year. Cash assistance for the homeless was seen as a good idea for understandable reasons, but now that the negative effects from it are clear, the 'progressive' thing to do would be to stop the cash handouts and use the money to provide actual services to get people off the street.
Re:How...? by Suidae · 2004-10-24 06:22 · Score: 2

The money they give out is not enough to rent even the cheapest housing in the San Francisco area, but it is enough to fuel one hell of a drug binge, which regularly kills many homeless people every year.

so... its working?
Re:How...? by walkerk77 · 2004-10-24 06:46 · Score: 1

It appears laptop computers are very cheap in San Francisco: http://www.sfindependent.com/article/index.cfm/i/1 00604n_laptops
Re:How...? by jbn-o · 2004-10-24 07:17 · Score: 1

How feasible would it be to pay for something like this by screwing the citizens out of some privacy they now enjoy? Set up a node with an RFID scanner + a GPS unit + a WiFi card on a small mainboard (perhaps a mini-ITX or somesuch). Place the nodes where the electricity already is (light posts, city street corners, people's homes), and install a free software OS and a daemon that reports RFID data to some central database(s) as people, cars, etc. walk by with their RFID tags.

The point of all this being that one could collect data to track people's movements and then one could make money by selling this data to advertisers or vendors. Of course, technically, one is tracking the RFID tag, not the person, but I doubt most people will be savvy enough to know that they have RFID tagged items on them (clothing, shoes) or are using them (car parts).

Theoretically, the people get the ubiquitous WiFi they desire, and the bills are paid by citizens being tracked all over town.

Or, one could levy a tax on the town and pay for things that way. Only those who insist on paying no more taxes for anything ever would object.

--
Digital Citizen
Re:How...? by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-10-24 07:45 · Score: 2, Informative

The San Francisco public library already has umpteen computers with Internet access as well as plug-in access for laptops. One can sign-up for hour or half-hour access - although the wait is long as many people use this service.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:How...? by timeOday · 2004-10-24 08:46 · Score: 1

Transient homeless migrate to whereever they get the most handouts.
I'd imagine the climate is a big draw as well. I can't imagine living out of doors, but if I did it wouldn't be in Minnesota!
Re:How...? by dfn_deux · 2004-10-24 09:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

San Francisco is a fairly expensive place to live, there are not a lot of poor people there. I'm sure they are only concerned with the people who actually have an address- not homeless people, who don't pay taxes, or vote.
This is a ridiculous statement from someone who has obviously not been to San Francisco. SF has some of the largest housing projects in the state. Also, it has rent control laws from the 60's which means that many of the people who live in the number streets south of Golden Gate park are not the upper middle class families that you imagine. This initiative is just a gross mismanagment of public funds. If the city really wanted to do something that benefitted more people they could just remove the tax burden that will be used to fund this mandate which would also have the secondary effect of not putting commercial WIFI busineses out on their collective ass. Maybe SF should spend this money on upgrading their sewage and water facilities, some of which have been in operation since the before the last century, or maybe lowering the cost of the Muni bus and light rail system so that the public transportation becomes an affordable alternative to vehicle ownership, or maybe they could instead use this money to build more free public parking in a city where the monthly cost for a covered spot is over $500 in many areas.
Governments should not be in the business of competing with private enterprise, especially when the arena in which they choose to compete is not directly benefitting all the tax payers which will foot the bill. I'm sure the people who live in Hunter's Point or The Tenderloin would agree that this money would be better spent on Police, Fire, and other critical infrastructure in a city where shootings, fires, etc.. are a regular part of daily life.

--
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Re:How...? by tsm_sf · 2004-10-24 10:05 · Score: 1

If the city really wanted to do something that benefitted more people they could just remove the tax burden that will be used to fund this mandate which would also have the secondary effect of not putting commercial WIFI busineses out on their collective ass.

And it's not like they need the help. Maybe that $50/month subscription price could have been rethought sooner...

Seriously though, if they get a few local tech oriented non-profits involved in the installation, use tried and true low cost techniques, and leave the planning in the hands of one competent engineer it could be pretty interesting. What if they partnered with Speakeasy on their NetShare program?

--
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Re:How...? by dfn_deux · 2004-10-24 10:17 · Score: 1

Which takes care of intial infrastructure and some maintainence costs, but who pays the bandwidth bill for as many as 700,000 people?

--
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Re:How...? by mark_lybarger · 2004-10-24 13:59 · Score: 1

um, i was out in sf this year for the java one converence. i got a week long muni pass for about 12$. i was able to go anywhere in the city very conveniently.

my elementary kids were along for the ride, and they'll never ever forget the loads upon loads of filthy, smelly, trashy people constantly asking if we could spare some change. manhantan was much nicer in this respect than san francisco.

local governments should be in the business of providing services that benefit the overall community as a whole. by a local government engaging in police/fire businesses, aren't they competing (or removing the market for) private enterprise?
Re:How...? by moldor.the.flatulent · 2004-10-24 14:35 · Score: 1

You see, this is where the USA has it all over Australia (well, ONE of the many ways)...
Here's how the system works (or should);
USA: You go see your congressman or other politician with a complaint. He asks to see your "registered voter" card. No card ? If you can't be bothered to vote, I can't be bothered to talk to you.
Australia: Forget it - voting in EVERY local, state or federal election is COMPULSORY, with heavy fines for not voting.
So in the USA those who vote, by and large, actually care about what they're voting for, whereas in Australia because we HAVE TO vote you wouldn't believe the amount of wasted votes.
Re:How...? by dfn_deux · 2004-10-24 14:36 · Score: 1

um, i was out in sf this year for the java one converence. i got a week long muni pass for about 12$. i was able to go anywhere in the city very conveniently.

I've not seen pricing for week long passes, but the standard rate for a ride on muni has gone from .35USD to 1.25USD in the last 7 years. Likewise the cost of the Cable car is up to 3.00USD. I'm not saying this is an outrageous cost, but it is definately something that I think would provide a greater benefit than "free" WIFI.

my elementary kids were along for the ride, and they'll never ever forget the loads upon loads of filthy, smelly, trashy people constantly asking if we could spare some change. manhantan was much nicer in this respect than san francisco.

I'm not sure what your point is. But, I can't see how tax dollars paying for WIFI could possibly benefit the homeless, unemployed, underemployed, etc...

local governments should be in the business of providing services that benefit the overall community as a whole. by a local government engaging in police/fire businesses, aren't they competing (or removing the market for) private enterprise?

This must surely be a troll, but I think it has been long accepted that Emergency services provide a benefit to all that may befall an emergency, Ipso Facto EVERYBODY... Emergency services are one of the few services which should IMHO not be privitized or controlled by market forces. When lives are at stake it hardly seems apropriate to contract by bid to a private police or fire department. Likewise, there isn't much of a private industry providing these service which the government would be competing with...

--
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Re:How...? by elemental23 · 2004-10-24 19:49 · Score: 1

What's happened to Slashdot when the parent post isn't modded up Funny? How disappointing.

--
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Re:How...? by mark_lybarger · 2004-10-24 23:26 · Score: 1

your public transportation is extremely cheep and easy to use.

the point is get rid of the smelly folks on the streets. NY managed to get cleaned up.

i don't really think the local governement should get into public wireless in a city like san fran. i'm sure verizon will do a much better job at providing national coverage.

i don't even think the mayor there said he wants to see a government controlled service, just that there should be free wireless coverage across the city.

my point regarding fire/police services was extreme, but it goes along with the point that the local governments should not be involved in areas that businesses could compete with (your original point). this leaves the local government back to their "core compentencies" of making laws and enforcing the laws (mayor and friends, sherrif and friends).

Looks like another tax hike ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 02:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class

Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by ShieldW0lf · 2004-10-24 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class

When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.

I'd say the ideal approach would be to have the city own the infrastructure and contract out the services, then make infrastructure maintenance and improvements a condition of the next round of contracts. That would ensure that the city maintains the ability to easily change companies and prevent them from ever being held over a barrel by their supplier.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by bigman2003 · 2004-10-24 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

One thing that ticks me off- is the assumption that the government cannot spend any money for services tht will benefit a large portion of the population, until there are no poor/homeless people left.

City government's job is not to solely start at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and start moving everyone up. The citizens in the middle don't need to wait until everyone below them has been 'assisted'.

Parks cost a lot of money- most cities attempt to provide nice parks for their residents.

Unfortunately, having a park near your house is not always a good thing. These days, a lot of parks have been turned into de-facto homeless shelters. Every city has the 'homeless park' where nobody else (who actually paid the taxes to build the park) can go. If you live in Sacramento, go hang out at Ceasar Chavez park, on any day other than the free music days. You will be surrounded by homeless people, and all of their belongings.

In the town I live in (see my sig) we have a park like that. It is the park right near downtown- which is surrounded on 3 sides by residential neighborhoods. Who goes to the park- kids? families? No...guys sitting around drinking until the pass out or puke. Great- another park that can't be enjoyed by the general population.

I am NOT saying that we should not spend money to help these people. What I am saying, is that when city funds are used to pay for something else OTHER than social services, it's okay. We can spend money (taxpayer money, and most of the taxpayers are not getting drunk in the park) for something that will benefit the other 99% percent of the community.

Our city also has a large/nice homeless shelter - which for our population is a great base of assistance. But not everything we do needs to be for the assistance of the same group of people. The other 50,000 can benefit from their own taxes too.

--
No reason to lie.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Hatta · 2004-10-24 03:45 · Score: 1

When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.

In what bizarre vision of socialism do multinational corporations even exist?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Carewolf · 2004-10-24 03:54 · Score: 1

In what bizarre vision of socialism do multinational corporations even exist?

The one called socialism, as opposed to something called communism.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Ohreally_factor · 2004-10-24 04:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm guessing that Pacific Bell already owns most of the wired infrastructure, and I'm not that sure it would be cost efficient to build and maintain a second wired infrastructure.

San Francisco's advantage is that it's such a small big city. A population of 776,773 and an area of 47 square miles yields a density of 16,526 persons per square mile. I have no idea how they plan to do this, but if they spent $20,000 per square mile for wireless equipment*, that's less than $1,000,000. Outdoor WAPs can be had for as little as $330 or inexpensive consumer routers can be adapted/ruggedized with tupperware.

So, your point is a good one. The City could build out a wireless infrastructure fairly cheaply, and leave the actual operation to a private contractor.

*The number of $20,000 was conveniently pulled out of my ass, and left no marks fortunately. I don't see how this could go higher than $100,000/sq. mi. if they use off the shelf equipment, though, so that's an infrastructure cost of $5 million. Peanuts! This is the sort of thing that attracts business and tourism, so I have no doubt it could pay for itself.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Dr.+Bent · 2004-10-24 04:51 · Score: 1

When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.

Lets who get maximum buying power?

Even if it is true true that socalist enconomies are more efficent when dealing with monopolistic corporations (and I would dispute that), the fact that their muiltinational has nothing to do with the effectiveness of socialism vs. capitalism. In a free market, a U.S. company can price gouge you just as easily as one from China. But of course that's a good thing, because it also means that the Chineese company can undercut the U.S. company if it's prices start to get out of line.

Or were you just using the term 'multinational' as a cheap way to appeal to the hard-core lefties in the audience?

Either way, history has already shown the inherient flaw in socialism: Whenever economic decision making is centralized in the name of "efficiency" the decisions that are made eventually wind up benefiting those in power the most. Find out who's getting the contract to wire the city and I'm sure you'll find it holds true in this case. Power corrupts...be that power economic or military the result is the same.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by tasidar · 2004-10-24 05:02 · Score: 1

San Francisco's [wikipedia.org] advantage is that it's such a small big city. A population of 776,773 and an area of 47 square miles yields a density of 16,526 persons per square mile. I have no idea how they plan to do this, but if they spent $20,000 per square mile for wireless equipment*, that's less than $1,000,000. Outdoor WAPs can be had for as little as $330 [metrix.net] or inexpensive consumer routers can be adapted/ruggedized with tupperware.
So, your point is a good one. The City could build out a wireless infrastructure fairly cheaply, and leave the actual operation to a private contractor.

Or the city could contact some people who are already paying for dsl/cable or some other high speed internet access and ask them to create an access point and wireless mesh network... maybe by offering to subsidize their connection.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by TheCaptain · 2004-10-24 05:08 · Score: 1

When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.

Which brings to mind, one of the most amusing things I have noticed about socialist 'success' stories out there. The wealthier people in their socialist societies very often seem to have gotten that way (at least in some significant part) by dealing with capitalists outside of their socialist system. Either that, or they were fortunate enough to have come from wealth before the countries were socialist.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by tasidar · 2004-10-24 05:09 · Score: 1

True dat! SF has a huge homeless population and oodles of very poor people who I'm sure will all be taking advantage of the free internet on their laptops!
Unfortunately, your statement is insightful.
With all the charity they receive, they have a higher standard of living than most working families...
I worked on the remodel for some of the "Care not Cash projects"...their apartments are among the best I've seen, and they should be, considering the price taxpayers are paying for them.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by akb · 2004-10-24 06:21 · Score: 1

You are way off reality on several accounts.

One thing that ticks me off- is the assumption that the government cannot spend any money for services tht will benefit a large portion of the population, until there are no poor/homeless people left.

I actually don't know anyone that has that particular political philosophy. Even radical forms of socialism do not advocate that.

If you think that municipal governments spend a disproportionate amount of money on social service programs to services that benefit everyone then you're very misinformed. How much do you think roads, trash collection, public safety, jails and schools cost? The proportion of a municipal budget that these items consume is far more than spent on the homeless, public housing, drug treatment, etc.

You seem to think that 99% of people in communities don't need social services. I don't know what your community is like but if that's the case then it occupies the very upper crust of society. The numbers in most larger cities are between 10 and 20 percent.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by wdavies · 2004-10-24 06:27 · Score: 1

Not at all true. I live here. Comcast/ATT just rewired the city for fibre, and another company is doing likewise (RCN?).

There is so much bandwidth here under the streets. I still have dificulty believeing how much t-mobile and even the local outfits get to gouge on Access Prices to wireless. I mean, its a DSL line and a 100 dollar router...
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by rossz · 2004-10-24 06:57 · Score: 1

socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money

I don't want to be insulting, but... Are you a complete idiot?
In practice, socialism guarantees a broken implementation of whatever you are doing, with a massive cost far above what commericial interests would do it for. Since socialism does not have to justify the expensive and make a profit, there is absolutely zero incentive to keep costs at a reasonable level. After all, you can always steal^H^H^H^H^H tax the people to cover the waste.
In San Francisco, this is even more so. The entrenched socialistic system is so wasteful that even when the city is WAY beyond being broke, they want to add yet another "freebie". Since I can do basic math, I know it isn't free and I know who actually pays for it. I'm so glad I chose not to live in The City.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Ohreally_factor · 2004-10-24 07:34 · Score: 1

Hey, it was my guess, based on seeing huge spools on SBC trucks on Market Street a few or more years ago.

Thanks for the correction, but the point still stands: A wireless infrastructure needs to connect to a wired infrastructure at some point if it is to provide access to the internet, and the wired infrastructure is already in place, for the most part. No need to reinvent (or rebuild) the wheel.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-10-24 08:05 · Score: 1

"With all the charity they receive, they have a higher standard of living than most working families...their apartments are among the best I've seen"

Are you full of shit!

I live in a SRO on Eddy Street. A single room, for those of you who don't know what an SRO is (Single Room Occupancy).

This is NOT "the best apartment I've seen".

Besides the bedbug infestation (now abated - in my room, at least), this place is not one of the Hilton hotels - you won't see Paris wandering around here any time soon. And other places are worse.

This is not to say the place is not livable. I've been here for three years - others have been here in excess of ten. But it's NOT some great apartment.

If the poster is referring to the Federal Section 8 program, he is misrepresenting the state of Welfare recipients in San Francisco and their access to housing. Section 8 has nothing to do with the SRO housing available to the poor in San Francisco.

This is an example of the misrepresentation the "Care Not Cash" people used to justify their attempts to do away with any form of Welfare in San Francisco.

They advocate services instead of cash - but never had any way of providing the services promised - especially housing as there IS NO suitable housing in San Francisco for the poor - other than the existing SRO cheap hotel room system. Where was the city going to find 5,000 or 10,000 new housing for the homeless? Nowhere if the landlords in San Francisco had any say about it.

Care Not Cash was about doing exactly what the other posters suggested - eliminate services and money and drive the homeless out of San Francisco so they could be some other city's problem.

San Francisco did this years ago as well. Back in the Seventies, it was a laughing stock of the nation because of a report that street sweepers working for the Department of Public Works were being paid $18,000 a year (good money back then) and had a waiting list for the job for years.

So the city decided to kill two birds with one stone. They required Welfare recipients to sweep the streets in order to qualify for a Welfare check. By creating a slave labor class, they reduced their expenses for DPW and drove people off the Welfare roles.

This practice continues in San Francisco - although now with the PAES program, you can also get job training and support if you really want to work. The PAES program is far more useful than any previous Welfare programs have been. It got me through the past two years after I got out of the joint, got me current computer training, and has positioned me to potentially obtain a well-paid job at City College if things work out.

That is the kind of program that might be made to work to help the homeless and the poor.

But as with everything else, it depends on the motivation of the person participating.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by bfields · 2004-10-24 08:16 · Score: 1

Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class

I suppose you were just being facetious, but there are a number of reasons why it may make simple economic sense do basic infrastructure this way.
Stuff like networking tends to end up being a monopoly anyway, and there are advantages to it being a democratically regulated one--the government has to be responsive to voters, is bound by the first amendment, etc.
Once the city has decided to roll out wireless everywhere, there's the choice whether to pay for it out of taxes or by charging connection fees. But if a large portion of the population actually uses the service, then the per-user cost is probably quite low. The billing, bookkeeping, and enforcement required to collect fees may just not look worth it at that point.
Obviously, there may be certain economic advantages to a city with a really good data network, and those advantages might turn into tax revenue that helps offset the cost of the network.
These are the same sorts of reasons why road networks aren't usually privatized....
Also, this isn't just a toy for the rich; the cost of an entry-level computer has plumeted over the last couple decades. Isn't it likely that the price of a basic 802.11b-enabled handheld could drop under $100 in the next few years? Consider all the ways that could be useful to someone looking for work, trying to find basic city services, etc., etc.
(Digression: one small convenience I would personally love: many municipal public transport systems already track all of their buses and trains using GPS. A handheld with GPS and wireless could easily answer questions like "how can I get from here to the library by 2pm?", "where is the nearest stop for the southbound red line?", or "where is the #75 right now?")
--Bruce Fields
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by greenrd · 2004-10-24 09:27 · Score: 1

Or were you just using the term 'multinational' as a cheap way to appeal to the hard-core lefties in the audience?
Either way, history has already shown the inherient flaw in socialism: Whenever economic decision making is centralized in the name of "efficiency" the decisions that are made eventually wind up benefiting those in power the most.
Yes. Exactly. Which is exactly what's wrong with multinational corporations!

--
Female Prison Rape in NY
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by crimson30 · 2004-10-24 09:33 · Score: 1

I am curious, sir. What is it you do for a living, and how much is your rent?
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-10-24 09:35 · Score: 1

Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class

What does paying for WiFi access with tax money have to do with workers' control of factories?

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by dfn_deux · 2004-10-24 09:51 · Score: 1

San Francisco's advantage is that it's such a small big city. A population of 776,773 and an area of 47 square miles yields a density of 16,526 persons per square mile. I have no idea how they plan to do this, but if they spent $20,000 per square mile for wireless equipment*, that's less than $1,000,000. Outdoor WAPs can be had for as little as $330 or inexpensive consumer routers can be adapted/ruggedized with tupperware. So, your point is a good one. The City could build out a wireless infrastructure fairly cheaply, and leave the actual operation to a private contractor.

You are forgetting the biggest portion of the bill will be the bandwidth usage. Maybe you imagine the hardware portion of the infrastructure going in for less than a million. But how much do you think the monthly bandwidth bill is going to be? I work for a Internet Datacenter Colocation facility and can tell you that this is something that would need to be serviced by some seriously fat backbones, probably on the magnitude of several OC48's this would likely cost every month what it would to put a new firetruck in the SFFD fleet or two/three addidtional Police officers' annual salary or provide free parking during business hours for the entire Market st. area.

--
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by TheLittleJetson · 2004-10-24 10:03 · Score: 1

most of the taxpayers are not getting drunk in the park

speak for yourself.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by Rotund+Prickpull · 2004-10-24 10:34 · Score: 1

This is the sort of thing that attracts business
I totally agree. I'm the president of a multi-million dollar company and we don't have our own internet connection. To avoid the cost of doing so we intend to immediately relocate to a place with expensive rents and high taxes. The fact that the access points might be sniffing our confidential data is just the icing on the cake.
and tourism
too true, when I'm on holiday I just always lug my laptop around when I go shopping or sightseeing. Heaven forbid that I might walk into a cybercafe (whatever one of them is) and use the machine in there.
so I have no doubt it could pay for itself.
I share a similar level of certainty that you are talking out of your arse.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by ShieldW0lf · 2004-10-24 10:38 · Score: 1

Lets who get maximum buying power?

Even if it is true true that socalist enconomies are more efficent when dealing with monopolistic corporations (and I would dispute that), the fact that their muiltinational has nothing to do with the effectiveness of socialism vs. capitalism. In a free market, a U.S. company can price gouge you just as easily as one from China. But of course that's a good thing, because it also means that the Chineese company can undercut the U.S. company if it's prices start to get out of line.

Or were you just using the term 'multinational' as a cheap way to appeal to the hard-core lefties in the audience?

Either way, history has already shown the inherient flaw in socialism: Whenever economic decision making is centralized in the name of "efficiency" the decisions that are made eventually wind up benefiting those in power the most. Find out who's getting the contract to wire the city and I'm sure you'll find it holds true in this case. Power corrupts...be that power economic or military the result is the same.

To answer your first point, the ones that get the buying power are the ones that participate in the economy. Obviously those that are not living in SF are not going to benifit.

And to answer to your second point, the significance of the fact that the corps are multinational is that no individual governments decision regarding which service provider to go with will result in the others going out of business. If you were to restrict bidding to local businesses in this instance, the moment the first contract went out, there would really only be one supplier remaining and therefore there would no longer be multiple businesses competing for the renewal. Then the whole city ends up at the mercy of the suppliers wishes, not really an ideal result if you live there.

I'd say that the approach I suggested allows the efficiencies that a local monopoly brings via reduction in redundancy, the efficiencies that capitalism brings via the profit motive, and massive volume pricing to everyone in the the city.

Oh, and corruption exists in every political and economic system in the world. The solution isn't a different system, it's a population that insists on transparent processes. Based on recent history, I wouldn't suggest anyone that lives in America should be casting disparaging remarks about the corruption of other ppls economic systems if they wish to be taken seriously :P

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by feepness · 2004-10-24 11:57 · Score: 1

When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.

Perhaps in the short term. But in the long term you stifle innovation and ultimately lower efficiency.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by ErikZ · 2004-10-24 12:09 · Score: 1

USED to let you get maximum buying power and save money.

If you haven't heard, Canada has stopped large shipments of drugs back to the US. The demand was driving the price up in Canada.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:Looks like another tax hike ... by TheCaptain · 2004-10-25 03:19 · Score: 1

Well...that's a reply I guess, but you really didn't refute pretty much anything I said.

The U.K. hasn't done bad at all, overall. (Never said that.) BUT - I think you'll find that alot of the wealthiest people there were either born in a wealthy family (*cough*royalty*cough*), or work in a multinational corporation that are benefitted greatly by dealing with more capitalist countries.

I really don't think you'll find as many self-made wealthy (and especially not VERY wealthy) people in a socialist system versus a capitalist system - and alot of the wealthy ones you do find will owe a good part of that wealth to dealing with the capitalists. J.K. Rowling is a great example of this, as I really don't think the majority of her book sales are in the U.K.

Good idea...but... by deanj · 2004-10-24 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Good idea and San Francisco is a great place to visit, but shouldn't they do something to help the unemployed and homeless in that town? And when I say "help the homeless", I mean REALLY help them, like get them a place to live and a way to make a buck, not just handouts, which they've done in the past.

Re:Good idea...but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually I think SF has a "workfare" program where if you show up at certain places in the morning (and you aren't drunk or high) you can get work for the morning sweeping and cleaning. Granted you aren't going to get paid much and really sucks but if you need a way to get on your feet it can be a start. Do that for a couple of mornings, rent a motel room for a week, get cleaned up, find a shitty fast food job, then just start building from there....easier said than done but at least it's a possibility.
Re:Good idea...but... by pyrrhonist · 2004-10-24 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Good idea and San Francisco is a great place to visit, but shouldn't they do something to help the unemployed and homeless in that town?
What do mean? The Mayor gave them free WiFi! FREE!
They don't even need the cardboard sign that says, "Will work for bandwidth", anymore.
Seriously, what more do they need?
</SATIRE>

--
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Re:Good idea...but... by seudafed · 2004-10-24 02:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

My girlfriend is interning at Berkeley Mental Health. You'd be suprised how many homeless people have web pages or at least email addresses.

sky
Re:Good idea...but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 02:27 · Score: 2, Funny

This will help the homeless. Now they won't have to buy an expensive latte while getting their Internet access.
Re:Good idea...but... by bigman2003 · 2004-10-24 03:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's because in Berkeley, a ton of the 'homeless' people are just kids who thought it would be awesome to 'hang out in Berkeley all day and bum money for food.'

I would guess that Berkeley has one of the lowest average ages for homeless people. I always enjoy walking down Telegraph, and having kids with dreadlocks come up, and ask for food- while flashing teeth so straight, that his parents are probably still paying the orthodontic bills. These kids hang out with their Che Guevara t-shirts, and talk about how 'everything should be free'. But aren't willing to do anything other than ask for handouts.

Also, while sitting around in Davis CA, I've watch the same 'homeless' kids talk about going back to Berkeley, because they can earn a few hundred bucks on Saturdays. (In Davis, they generally hang out in front of Baskin Robbins, Chipotle, or Newsbeat). Of course after hearing them say this- the proceed to ask me for money 'for food'.

I really hate those kids...

--
No reason to lie.
Re:Good idea...but... by e40 · 2004-10-24 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Federal social services have been cut, steadily, since the early 80's, started by Reagan. In the 80's there was a flood of homeless into the street from mental institutions. Anyone in Berkeley in the 80's could tell that most of the people on the street were plain nuts and needed full-time help.

Berkeley and SF are tolerant places. The cops don't throw them in jail (or beat them and tell them to get out of town). Many places across the US are very intolerant of homeless people, and will run them out of town.

The weather is good most of the year (not too cold, little rain).

Put all these factors together, and you get a recipe for attracting homeless people from all over the country.

It's not an SF problem, it's a US problem. The US should do something about this.
Re:Good idea...but... by ergo98 · 2004-10-24 03:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The best way to help the least fortunate is often by increasing the size of the economic pie - basically by making the middle class richer by encouraging economic commerce and innovation (cue naïve sarcastic remarks about Reagan's trickle down economics. Note, however, that I'm talking about the middle class rather than the rich. Furthermore, I am not speaking about tax cuts, but rather programs or initiatives that expand the economy, such as encouraging technological growth). Perhaps the premise behind free wireless is that it will lead to a slew of new programs and services in the San Francisco area that will lead to a lot of taxable commerce - tax revenue that can then be used to provide mental health support for some of the homeless. The most effective route to a goal isn't always the most direct.

BTW: An enjoyable read for the armchair economist is the very enlightening The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created. It basically covers why some countries achieved such prosperity (hint - it isn't that they stole it from the poor countries).
Re:Good idea...but... by cdrguru · 2004-10-24 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

We emptied the mental institutions because there was a general concensus at the time that these people were being abused by being kept in an institution. It was much cheaper to keep them locked away somewhere than it was to dump them out on the street and then try to clean up the mess. But, the decision was made that somehow it was unfair to these people to lock them away.
Now, mental institutions have never been one of my favorite places to visit, and especially not as an inmate. However, did we really do these people a service? I think not. However, this was absolutely not a case of "shrinking social programs" - this was all about liberating the mentally ill. Look where it got us.
Re:Good idea...but... by Fnkmaster · 2004-10-24 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is a college town phenomenon. I live in Cambridge, MA and we have tons of 15-25 year old semi-homeless kids. Sure, there are the 50 year old, Vietnam vet, burned out folks (many with serious mental health issues), and the older guys who are career panhandler Spare Change selling types - these are usually the loudest, slickest panhandlers, but they are numerically fairly small, whereas you see tons of the panhandling kids.

Most of them seem to be disaffected teenagers who have temporarily run away from home or something along those lines. And sometimes they aren't actually homeless at all, they just panhandle because they think it's cool (no, I'm not kidding).

Ah well, the nice things about Cambridge more than make up for some of its eccentricities. College towns with rampant communist subcultures are magnets for this sort of thing (makes you realize what would happen if an entire society decided to depend on other peoples handouts and decided to stop doing productive work).
Re:Good idea...but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 05:00 · Score: 1

Actually, people think it sucks, but the city spens a crapload of money on homeless services and nothing ever seems to change.

Bum solution in UT, NV, outstate CA: Buy them a bus ticket for San Francisco.
Bum solution in SF: ????
Re:Good idea...but... by WhiteBandit · 2004-10-24 05:06 · Score: 1

Good idea and San Francisco is a great place to visit, but shouldn't they do something to help the unemployed and homeless in that town? And when I say "help the homeless", I mean REALLY help them, like get them a place to live and a way to make a buck, not just handouts, which they've done in the past.

While the submitter stated Newsom's goal of wi-fi access for all, the focus of his speech *was* on the homeless problem in San Francisco.

He said that, "Homeless are the new symbol of San Francisco" and proposed expanding our "Care Not Cash" program to help them out. (Care not Cash actually cuts their welfare benefits and finds places for them to live, as well as help with jobs and such)

Regarding free wi-fi access for all, it's so prevalent already that I don't think it should be that big of a deal. Between all these cafes and things that run hotspots and residential units running unsecure wi-fi, it's fairly easy to get wireless access in the city already.

I live on a hill in the inner Sunset, and if I stand on our balcony with my laptop, I can get 12 unsecured networks!
Re:Good idea...but... by tasidar · 2004-10-24 05:13 · Score: 1

Why don't the homeless move somewhere else where it's not so expensive? I left the bay area because it was too expensive for me, and I make about 70K a year. I can't imagine what would keep the poor in that area... oh wait, it's the handouts.
Yup... Soon only the very rich or very "poor" can live in sf.
Re:Good idea...but... by baywulf · 2004-10-24 05:38 · Score: 1

A few years back San Francisco passed the "Care not Cash" law where instead of just providing homeless people money they tried to find the a clean place to live, help them sober up and find a job. By pooling together the money from many homeless then can get better deals for a place to live. I read a few newspaper articles where the former homeless all had positive response to the effort.
Re:Good idea...but... by foxfyre · 2004-10-24 05:49 · Score: 1

Um, some of those people DO NOT want to be helped. They would rather sleep on the street and pander than clean up their act. The Chronicle did a special series on the hardcore homeless, and there are some homeless who refuse to accept a change, any change. The others can be helped, but tell me how the city is going to afford to buy/rent more space in a place like SF to put up more shelters... Have you seen rents lately? They're also on the way up. Have you seen how much commercial and residential property sells for in the city?

--
-- Not a /. dude.
Re:Good idea...but... by superdude72 · 2004-10-24 06:05 · Score: 4, Informative

And when I say "help the homeless", I mean REALLY help them, like get them a place to live and a way to make a buck, not just handouts, which they've done in the past.

Newsom's campaign emphasized this issue. I'm not sure I agree with his approach, but suffice it to say he is not ignoring the homeless problem in order to implement free wireless. There is a measure on the city ballot to increase the sales tax and give all of the increase to social services. It will probably pass.

The thing is, homelessness is an enormously expensive problem to solve, probably beyond the means of any individual city. Cities that "solve" their problems with homelessness do so by shifting the burden to other cities--it's not like anyone checks your passport when you take BART in from Concord. There is nothing to stop Concord from cutting its social services budget to nothing, so those people are forced to go to San Francisco for their methadone. This is what has happened all over America. And why not? If you can get rid of your drug addicts and homeless by CUTTING the social services budget, why not do so? Nobody wants these people in their neighborhood. We need to stop shifting this problem around and solve it on a national level. Unfortunately, it's hard to muster the political will. When suburban people see that their communities have no homeless, they assume the problem has been solved, and it hasn't.

Wireless access, on the other hand, is relatively cheap, and can be done with or without national cooperation, so it doesn't make sense to put this on hold until we solve the problem of homelessness. It isn't merely a lack of $2-3 million that is at the root of the problem--if that were the case, a rich, liberal city like San Francisco would have solved it a long time ago.
Re:Good idea...but... by j1bb3rj4bb3r · 2004-10-24 08:00 · Score: 1

I just moved from Cambridge to SF, and I can attest to this story. I've seen the Harvard Square kids panhandle all day and then their mom comes to pick him up in an Audi A6 at the end of the day to take him back to Newton. I wonder if the kid gives his mom shit, like "Mom! I told you not to pick me up in the Audi... bring the Celica... jeez you're so cramping my style". And, of course, being the progressive soccer mom that she is, she feels guilty for not letting her child express himself to his fullest potential.

--
*yawn*
Re:Good idea...but... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-10-24 08:12 · Score: 1

You are conflating two things - the PAES welfare to work system and the General Assistance program.

The PAES program offers job training and support services to people who want to work and have some vague possibility of finding work.

The General Assistance program gives out cash for people who are willing to sweep the streets. See my post elsewhere for how this program of using Welfare recipients as slave labor for the Department of Public Works got started. This program is where you find the drunks and whatnot who take the cash, sweep the streets, then go on a bender.

The PAES program is the only one where you might actually have a chance of getting off Welfare if you have the motivation.

I went through the entire 27 months of PAES, and have yet to get a job, but it looks like I'll be offered a high-paying position at City College in the near future if things work out, so the program did it's job of keeping me going and giving me access to education when I got out of the joint.

But without my own motivation, nothing would have helped.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Good idea...but... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-10-24 08:15 · Score: 1

$331 to $410 a month is not an "extremely generous stipend" depending on your circumstances.

And if you have to sweep the streets seven hours a day for three to five days to get it, it's not exactly "no strings attached".

There are PLENTY of strings attached to the San Francisco General Assistance program, let me assure you.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Good idea...but... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-10-24 08:20 · Score: 1

So it's the "handouts", is it?

And how would the poor AFFORD to move somewhere else? And to where? Someplace with NO handouts?

I love it when well-off people - and nationally $70,000 a year is "well-off" even if you might think it isn't because you didn't like paying $2K/month for a studio in San Francisco - think all poor people have to do is pack up, jump a bus and move to...somewhere...to better their lot.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Good idea...but... by geekoid · 2004-10-24 08:47 · Score: 1

most of the US is doing something,,we're beating them and driving them away..jesez SF, get on the boat. ;)

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Good idea...but... by blaberski · 2004-10-24 09:22 · Score: 1

Exactly. If you want to know who to blame for all the homless on the street look no further than your local A.C.L.U. office.
Re:Good idea...but... by antiMStroll · 2004-10-24 09:29 · Score: 1

It's a great idea but the middle class don't have legions of Washington lobbyists. Should the most clear headed, well intentioned and honest politician, the living embodiment of Mr. Smith, achieve exactly what you suggest within two administrations it will be twisted into "Reagan's trickle down economics" or tax cuts for the rich.
Re:Good idea...but... by Rotund+Prickpull · 2004-10-24 10:46 · Score: 1

you can get work for the morning sweeping and cleaning. [...] Do that for a couple of mornings, rent a motel room for a week,
... and before you know it, you're king of the road.
Re:Good idea...but... by Edie+O'Teditor · 2004-10-24 10:52 · Score: 1

These kids hang out with their Che Guevara t-shirts, and talk about how 'everything should be free'. But aren't willing to do anything other than ask for handouts.
Right on - if they won't give "a hole for the dole" they're just playing at it. It's like when I see reasonably attractive young women begging, I wonder why they don't go on the game - have they got no self respect or something?

--
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
Re:Good idea...but... by Hognoxious · 2004-10-24 10:55 · Score: 1

... what would happen if an entire society decided to depend on other peoples handouts and decided to stop doing productive work)
I take it you've never been to Belgium?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Good idea...but... by FrankHaynes · 2004-10-24 13:46 · Score: 1

These kids hang out with their Che Guevara t-shirts, and talk about how 'everything should be free'.

How dare you talk about slashdot readers like that?

Anyway, I don't understand this move to wire wireless access points everywhere at public taxpayer expense. The Government has proven its incompetence at so many other endeavors in the past, why should we expect this to be any different, particularly in a technical matter?

Verizon is building out its EV-DO network as we speak, so before you know it you will have reliable, broad Net access in many major cities. Other U.S. carriers are planning or implementing similar efforts. Yes, it won't be 'free', but you get what you pay for, usually. My money is on private industry.

--
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Re:Good idea...but... by gfreeman · 2004-10-25 03:13 · Score: 1

Well, now they can froogle for the cheapest booze.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.

Is this necessarily a good thing? by antifoidulus · 2004-10-24 02:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

I mean, the wireless isn't "free", taxdollars are paying for it. Unlike private solutions, people who don't use it will still have to pay for it. I'm not quite sure I like the government providing a non-essential service when there are already alternatives. Now the question is, does it mean increased revenue from tourism, better reputation, etc counterbalance the costs of the wireless access points/maintenance? Will some prosumers even want to use this service(as it may not be as reliable)? TFA was short on details, I'm willing to bet the mayor is trying to get re-elected, so he probably hasn't answered any of these questions yet.

--
Monstar L

Re:Is this necessarily a good thing? by Rayonic · 2004-10-24 02:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

> I mean, the wireless isn't "free", taxdollars are paying for it.

Indeed -- and what if I don't like the wireless service the city provides (the service is slow, etc.) I could get cable or DSL internet access, but then I'd essentially be paying for two internet connections.

Then there's the issue of rules. What kind of access restrictions will a city put up? Could you, in this instance, host a web site that gay people find insulting? I've never been banned from a service that I still had to pay for afterwards...

--
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Re:Is this necessarily a good thing? by gl4ss · 2004-10-24 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

well.. when you make paying something like this 'mandatory' (by making it appear 'free', as in you're going to pay for it anyways) makes an incentive to start using it(because it's there anyways and you don't have a choice of paying for it or not, so you end up using it to boost up your biz or life.).

maybe his trying to boost up it knowhow on it and make the city more competitive against other cities for businesses too.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Is this necessarily a good thing? by AndroidCat · 2004-10-24 02:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

What kind of access controls will there be? Can any kind of abuser (spam, DDoS, port-scan, trojaned zombie, etc) keep connecting if (ever) disconnected? Will they block some ports like 25? What if someone sucks down most of the bandwidth in the neighbourhood? Can I run servers with dynamic DNS? Who do I report a DDoS from SF space to?
If they don't manage it, the rest of the Internet might just throw the San Francisco wireless IP range into a "blackhole at the firewall" list in self-defence. And if SF taxpayers can't connect to anyone, who do they call at "SanFran Tech Support" to complain?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Is this necessarily a good thing? by k98sven · 2004-10-24 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's infrastructure. You could say the same thing about highways too.

It's very, very difficult to calculate the benefits of this, and really of any infrastructure investment.
(as far as I understand, there are no good models for this. Building roads is still mostly a political decision.)

But there are lots of things which conciveably balance the costs, most notably increased business productivity, competition and growth, and increased property value (which generates returns though property tax).

So, yeah, it's political.. but it doesn't automatically mean it's not economically justified. But whether it is or not is pure speculation. There's no way to tell in the short run.
Re:Is this necessarily a good thing? by autarkeia · 2004-10-24 02:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

The mayor is *not* trying to get re-elected. The mayor, in fact, is only in the first year of his 4-year term, and by just about any San Franciscan's account he has done nothing but kicked ass and mopped up the streets afterwards. He has completely revamped the budget, took a voluntary pay cut, reorganized the police and fire departments, cracked down on unsolved murders and crime, led the nation on human rights and gay marriage issues, and tackled San Francisco's biggest issue-- homelessness-- with a multidisciplinary team that seems to actually be working.

Say whatever you want to about Gavin Newsom, but he has been a major boon to San Francisco at a time when it's down. The WiFi thing of course could cost a lot of money, but imagine the potential benefits of pervasive, citywide, free access.
Re:Is this necessarily a good thing? by ivan256 · 2004-10-24 03:52 · Score: 1

Could you, in this instance, host a web site...

If they have any sense whatsoever, everybody will get a NATed address and be behind a giant firewall, so you won't be hosting anything.

Spitzer's iron wrist shits to music industry by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I know it's OT, but go look at news.google.com. "Spitzer's iron wrist shits to music industry" is one of the headlines under entertainment. There's an article about the San Fran Mayor on there too btw.

Stop Now by WhatsAProGingrass · 2004-10-24 02:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

"We will not stop until every San Franciscan has access to free wireless Internet service,"

"He said the city had already made free WiFi service available at Union Square, a central shopping and tourist hub"

So, everyone run down to the chopping center and get your free wifi. Problem solved.

--
Mark

Re:Stop Now by antifoidulus · 2004-10-24 02:20 · Score: 1

So, everyone run down to the chopping center and get your free wifi. Problem solved.
Yeah, I imagine a lot of people running down to the chopping center would solve a lot of problems in San Fransisco, not just the need for wireless access points...:P

--
Monstar L
Re:Stop Now by bergwitz · 2004-10-24 02:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

"We will not stop until every San Franciscan has access to free wireless Internet service," Doesn't that also imply that they need a device to access the free wireless internet service? Like a computer or PDA. Free PDAs for the homeless? Off course, wireless is the only alternative for the homeless.

--
Evolution is just a scientific theory. Creationism is not.

COOL! by ferrellcat · 2004-10-24 02:14 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess that means that THIS guy will finally get online! http://www.dkrupa.com/comics/28.jpg

Re:COOL! by mp3LM · 2004-10-24 02:17 · Score: 1, Redundant

That's so wrong, I'm not even going to reply to it.
Re:COOL! by JVert · 2004-10-24 04:26 · Score: 1

Holy shit! the homeless have internet access already?
Re:COOL! by calethix · 2004-10-24 04:33 · Score: 1

" I guess that means that THIS guy will finally get online! http://www.dkrupa.com/comics/28.jpg"

Too bad his domain has already been taken. He's gonna be pissed. :)

Just one question by AndroidCat · 2004-10-24 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

How many spammers live in San Francisco? How many will move there?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:Just one question by Joe+the+Lesser · 2004-10-24 04:05 · Score: 1

Damn! Good point! Forgot we need to scrap any plan that in might some way increase spam! Phew!

--
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Re:Just one question by vwjeff · 2004-10-24 04:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

How many spammers live in San Francisco? How many will move there?

Great question and I have more.

1. What are the restrictions on the internet access? (Bandwidth limits, censorship, ect.)

2. What will be the final cost to taxpayers?

3. How will this "free" service affect the local broadband providers?

Now for the rant.

Call me paranoid but I don't trust internet access provided by the government. 1984 would always be in the back of my mind when I am looking for information (pron) on the internet.

Now for cost. Who exactly will be using this service? The answer is people with computers. This is not in any way helping the homeless. If you have a wireless enabled computer you can probally afford internet access. Since this is publicly funded everyone who pays taxes will be paying for it. This includes those making minimum wage just trying to survive.

I'm sure when asked the Mayor will say that people don't have to use this service. They can always pay for internet access but why would you want to do that when I am giving it to you for "free?" I have a feeling that this government provided service will drive out private alternatives. So much for choice.
Re:Just one question by AndroidCat · 2004-10-24 07:42 · Score: 1

Call me paranoid but I don't trust internet access provided by the government.
Would you trust internet access provided by Starbucks?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Just one question by vwjeff · 2004-10-24 14:04 · Score: 1

Would you trust internet access provided by Starbucks?

I would trust internet access from Starbucks because it is a business. It does not enforce the law or make laws. Starbucks does not have the power to rightfully or wrongfully fine or imprison me.

ahhhhhhh by DeathByDuke · 2004-10-24 02:24 · Score: 3, Funny

let's go warflying dudes.

Well looky here. by bryanp · 2004-10-24 02:25 · Score: 4, Funny

He's got the circuses part covered. Where's the bread?

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper

So when the RIAA try some more lawsuits... by N3koFever · 2004-10-24 02:30 · Score: 4, Funny

...does the population of San Francisco get sued?

Re:So when the RIAA try some more lawsuits... by Guppy06 · 2004-10-24 04:02 · Score: 1

Piracy on the networks would be the equivalent of three or four San Franciscos!
Re:So when the RIAA try some more lawsuits... by NaDrew · 2004-10-24 08:36 · Score: 1

Piracy on the networks would be the equivalent of three or four San Franciscos!
Could you please restate that in an accepted measure, like Rhode Islands or Libraries of Congress? Thank you.

--
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE

Anti-competitive? by Spykk · 2004-10-24 02:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder what the local ISPs think about this. If it's wrong for microsoft to include a free web browser, is it wrong for the government to provide free internet access?

Re:Anti-competitive? by gl4ss · 2004-10-24 03:03 · Score: 1

well.. the local isp could sell this service to the goverment..

it's not like the service gets magically done from thin air - only thing that changes is where the money comes, directly from the customers or through a proxy(city gov.). hell, in this case there's probably MORE bucks to be spared and i'd be VERY surprised if some local or another wasn't involved in pitching this through.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Anti-competitive? by bob+beta · 2004-10-24 03:39 · Score: 1

i'd be VERY surprised if some local or another wasn't involved in pitching this through.

You're probably right. Some local outfit has lobbied for a government granted monopoly.

You stated that like it was some kind of good thing.

--
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Re:Anti-competitive? by Carewolf · 2004-10-24 03:59 · Score: 1

Is it anti-competitive for the government to provide free road access?

And what is the difference between offering free infrastructure and offering free infrastructure?

The great deal with free infrastructure is that it is a lot cheaper to build, since you do not need all the tolls and accounting. In this respect wireless internet resemples city-streets more than it resemples highways which are easily tolled.
Re:Anti-competitive? by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-10-24 06:27 · Score: 1

What is this "local ISP" you speak of?

It's SBC or Comcast for broadband.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

WiGLE! by SuperQ · 2004-10-24 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative

of course, the BEST place to find AP's is WiGLE.net, the database has listings for 1,847,784 APs.

um, it's not free as in beer nor as in speech by humanerror · 2004-10-24 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

We already have a decent, FREE, and fast wireless network in The City: SFLan.org.

Do you really want to be bound by the government's TOS, for a service "sold" as free that you are in fact paying for, whether you use it or not?

Of course, using public money for questionable ends is nothing new... but dear Gavin already invests far too much of our money waging war on the poor (no, not on poverty... on the poor).

--
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK

Re:um, it's not free as in beer nor as in speech by alphafoo · 2004-10-24 03:10 · Score: 1

SFLan.org is a great idea and I applaud the folks behind it, but your statement that it's a decent wireless network in SF is a bit of a stretch. According to the Nagios map, there are 30 active nodes in SF, but mousing over them shows that only about half are deemed reachable. And even if all 30 were reachable, there is not a single one within over a mile from my place in North Beach. Living in one of the most populalated neighborhoods and still being over 1 mile from an SFLan access point in a city that is only 7x7 miles across means SF does not have a decent wireless network.

SFLan's TOS doesn't matter to me because there's no "S" in it for me. I would be happy with whatever TOS the city came up with--- archive my packets for future inspection for all I care--- so long as I can get decent WiFi and don't have to rely on Starbucks to be my ISP.

don't they already? by m33p · 2004-10-24 02:43 · Score: 1

looking at the coverage maps for open access points in SF, it looks like everyone in SF already has wireless access.

-p.

Wireless in SanFran?? by jmcmunn · 2004-10-24 02:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have never been to San Fran myself, but my dad has on numerous occasions. And from his stories, the terrain in SF is "pretty hilly" to say the least. I have had problems at home with my wireless sometimes reaching from one floor to another without messing around with the antenae all the time. It seems like they're going to need a heck of a lot of repeaters/ap's for this to work out at all in that terrain.

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to run hard-wired fiber into every building, and drop off a linksys wireless router to everyone? Probably not really, but it sure seems like it is going to be very difficult to get a good wireless network in that terrain.

is there an election coming up in SF that this guy is trying to get votes for?

Re:Wireless in SanFran?? by doorbot.com · 2004-10-24 06:10 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to run hard-wired fiber into every building

Well that would require digging up just about every street in the city, while wifi towers would require digging only a few holes for the foundations.

is there an election coming up in SF that this guy is trying to get votes for?

He was just elected last year, so he has three more years left on his term.

Now, what's my personal opinion on this? I hope, hope, hope that they have a *secure* means of accessing the web. I wouldn't mind using the system, but only if it's secure. That means an encrypted wifi connection *if I request it*. I know not everyone will have hardware to support that, but I just hope it's there for the (dare I say) "rich folks" who have the more modern hardware.

Also, won't a system like this kill the DSL/cable providers in the city? Or maybe it's intended to provide some competition to PacBell, who've been resting on their laurels for years.

There is no such thing as a free lunch by toupsie · 2004-10-24 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

1) Someone has to pay for it. It will be a freebie to certain voting blocks and a huge cost to others. If you are net tax contributor to the coffers of San Francisco, leave now!
2) This will be a freebie to the criminal elements of San Francisco and a huge cost to the law abiding, non-ubergeek. Consider yourself "pwned".
3) Expect this project to cost 10x what it is initially claimed. Gavin Newsom has a lot of paybacks for getting himself into power in San Francisco. Cost overruns will be massive.
4) This is best suited by corporation competition not government largess. Do we really want municipal Ma Bells all over the country?

If you want to do this on the cheap, make the homeless wear waypoint hats for their welfare checks. (insert joke about the waypoints keeping the government satellite signals out of their heads).

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Free internet ???? by mritunjai · 2004-10-24 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Does everybody in SF already has free medical facilities ? Free shelter ?

--
- mritunjai

Umm "free" , i dont think so by nurb432 · 2004-10-24 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is nothing that the government does/offers that is 'free'.

You have paid for service via your tax dollars..

And until politicians stop treating our money as such, the waste and over taxation will continue.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Umm "free" , i dont think so by bennomatic · 2004-10-24 07:07 · Score: 1

> What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear
>arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand
If you are going to quote the second ammendment, you may want to quote the whole thing:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I am neither for nor against any particular interpretation of the second ammendment, but for many years I thought that it ensured specifically the part that you quoted. However, the full text of the article brings into question the context of the right to keep and bear arms, and anyone whom you turn to your side by misquoting may easily go the other way when they learn the full text of the ammendment, just out of a feeling of having been misled.
Along the same lines, there are several interpretations to the word "free". He could mean "unfettered", or "unmetered". Or he could mean, "You're paying taxes anyway, you may as well get something for it rather than nothing." While I understand and appreciate your argument, a more precise statement such as "every resident will get unlimited wireless access to the internet using tax dollars they are already paying, though we are going ot have to cut back on other important social programs in order to do so" would be seen as weak and equivocating. You've seen how people treat Kerry whenever he gives an answer other than "Yes", "No" or "Kill, kill, kill!"
We elect politicians for a reason: we believe they understand our needs and will represent us honestly. If they do not do so, we ideally vote them out. Personally, I think that unfettered access to wireless Internet is a wonderful idea for every municipality. While some competing ISPs would not like it, it would be great for the economy in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that it would be a boon to low income students who might not have other ways of getting on the net, but might be able to buy an iBook with built in wireless.
This would make Internet part of the SF infrastructure, much like the sewer. 150 years ago, some SF mayor might have given a State of the City address in which he promised that all residents would have free access to flush toilets, knowing that was going to help make SF a world-class city. Of course it was going to have to be paid for, but it didn't mean it wasn't a good idea that he shouldn't have tried to sell as best as he could.
Anyway, I'm glad to see you're all fired up for November 2nd. Don't forget to vote.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?

Another site listing Wi-Fi is WiFiMaps.com by drewzhrodague · 2004-10-24 03:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Another site listing Wi-Fi is WiFiMaps.com. This covers mainly the US, and data is updated by our users who upload their wardriving scans.

--
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.

An who is paying for this? by thelizman · 2004-10-24 03:09 · Score: 1

"Free" wireless? Try "taxpayer funded" wireless. This is yet another taxpayer funded wealth redistribution program. But, as a geek, I don't mind so much, because its free interent. As an economist, the connective power of the Internet has economic benefits for society the same way the highway system and public streets do.

By the way, its good that michael didn't post this. When Bush proposed universal high speed access for all Americans, michaels left wing-nut two cent comment was "but he doesn't say how he's going to pay for all this".

Wireless for all is a question of state of mind by xiando · 2004-10-24 03:22 · Score: 1

While many people today view their personal networks as private things that must be guarded, many people are today starting to view wireless access points as public goods instead of something that needs to be protected.

A free everywhere wireless network is quite possible. I've heard quote a few people say things like "Well, if my ISP goes down it's OK, I got two neighbours who also have their networks open". Opening your network to everyone is not unsafe or a bad idea, it's a question of overall security. Allowing ANYONE who happen to be behind your firewall access to a service is stupid. The right thing to do is to secure the service with passwords regardless of who or what uses it. Viewing all networks as public and securing properly according to this is much better than the old firewall approach.

So, you are secured and it is OK for anyone to access your LAN, just open it up. Let anyone use the public Internet through your access point!

If everyone who has the Internet at home would do this in a mayor city then anyone there would be able to get the Internet free - anywhere - today!

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation

Re:Wireless for all is a question of state of mind by cdrguru · 2004-10-24 04:41 · Score: 1

Allowing ANYONE who happen to be behind your firewall access to a service is stupid. The right thing to do is to secure the service with passwords regardless of who or what uses it. Viewing all networks as public and securing properly according to this is much better than the old firewall approach.
Nice thought. Except the Internet is currently populated by significant numbers of people that want to either (a) steal anything they can lay their hands on or (b) cause as much damage and chaos as possible.
The folks in category (a) want your bank account, credit cards, bandwidth and anything else. They also have more time on their hands than you do, so they are going to win if you give them an opening. Passwords? What century are you living in? If you have high speed 24x7 access to a network how long is it really going to take to run through a 16 character password guesser? A month, maybe. Then you are owned.
The folks in category (b) tend to be script kiddies, so you just better make sure that whatever services are exposed are completely safe. What? You can't guarantee there isn't an exploit for your AP, your router, Linux, Windows XP and anything else on your network? Ooops - if you don't have that guarantee you are taking a big risk at running a zombie that could put you in big legal trouble.
Would it be a nice friendly place if everyone "shared"? Sure. Tell the script kiddies and thieves to move to another planet - or at least a different Internet - and we can all hold hands and share. Until then, consider using all of the security features at your disposal. First, you gotta guess what is open on the MAC filter, then crack WEP and then guess some passwords. Am I safe? I don't think so, not completely. I'd like to be a lot safer than I am.
Re:Wireless for all is a question of state of mind by Scott+Wood · 2004-10-24 08:15 · Score: 1

Passwords? What century are you living in? If you have high speed 24x7 access to a network how long is it really going to take to run through a 16 character password guesser? A month, maybe. Then you are owned.
Even if you limit it to passwords with exactly 16 lowercase alphabetic characters, that's (26^16)/(30*24*60*60), or over 16.8 quadrillion, passwords per second. Somehow I think the guessing would be just a bit slower than that (not to mention the fact that I'd probably notice the blinking LEDs indicating constant traffic on the switch, although the average user wouldn't necessarily know what that means).

What I'd be worried about is not password guessing, but people using my connection for spamming and/or other network abuse that ends up getting traced back to my DSL line.

Mayor's Rediculas Idea by Louie1462 · 2004-10-24 03:25 · Score: 1

This is just another attempt to socialize a service. Now in the short term it seems like a great idea because the more people you have in the funding pool the less money it costs. Being a very capatalistic person, I find it very disturbing that so many people in this country find it so equally conveniant to give their "wants" into the hands of the government. In the case of a government emergency, a private vender is more likely to continue service where as the government could use it as a tool against the people. I just thought it would be interesting to see the right side of the idea. Louie

Re:Mayor's Rediculas Idea by Monf · 2004-10-25 12:04 · Score: 1

This is basically a good old-fashioned public works project. Like the freeways, aqueducts, dams, bridges, etc...
What will happen is that the government will GIVE MONEY to private firms to put in the infrastructure, which will have the effect of employing more people, people employed will have more money, people with more money will spend it, spending it will stimulate the economy.
This is a good thing!! City-wide wifi access, more people employed to set it up and maintain it, more money circulating through the economy.
Public works projects have always been the best way to stimulate the economy (besides full-blown warfare), and always have much better results than funnelling money into the economy via tax cuts.
Public work projects raise a deficit which is eliminated by the benefits of the project, while deficits from tax cuts don't- because there is no widespread benefit from tax cuts: the rich just reinvest it and don't have to pay taxes on the capital gains. The rest of us - (wow: $600 child credit tax break - I'm sending my kid to Stanford now!!) - well the tax cut we get doesn't go far at all, does it?
This type of service will have long lasting positive benefits for everyone in the area - it will be money well spent.
Now, I'm heading back to the park for another bottle of Wild Irish Rose.

--
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Re:Mayor's Rediculas Idea by Louie1462 · 2004-10-25 17:21 · Score: 1

I thought it would be interesting to put a few facts on the table. First off I noticed you said that public works projects were a good way to get people employed and decrease deficit(after a increase) This does seem logical however I like to review the track record reguarding public works projects. I got the impression from your list that you may have been reffering to the New Deal. Historians agree it was not the public works projects that pulled America out of depression, it was War. Also, the building of freeways didn't come until Ike. The reason for their manufacture was because we needed a infastructure to transport large amounts of material during times of War.(If you think about it, that makes your other comment about war somewhat ironic.) Moving on, I don't trust the government. I do not believe that a bunch of poloticians should be incharge of delegating and commissioning contracts out to private contractors. Why? mainly because they don't know what they are talking about. Do you really believe that the mayor of S.F. actually knows anything about the costs and technological, Rescources human and capital that go into such a project? I don't, however after 18 years of watching my local government screw up just about every project they come across i am skeptical. My father used to build and install modulers for the school districts. Private contractors have a way of basically screwing the government over. They are not held accountable, the gov. officials ignorant of the truths of buisness will rely on the pure advice of private contractors. This will cost the tax payers an incredible amount of money. Just a few of my thoughts..... Louie

Just like Berkeley. by Kenja · 2004-10-24 03:37 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm going to file this under the same heading as the "sunshine for the masses" law that Berkeley has on the books. Living in the bay area is a strange experiance indeed.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

What's up with all the broken Coral cache links? by douglips · 2004-10-24 03:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

All the links in the story end in ".nyud.net:8090", in an attempt to use Coral. The problem is, that is appended after everything else, which makes it irrelevant.

Remember, its:
http://hostname.com.nyud.net:8090/rest/of/ur i?what ever
not
http://hostname.com/rest/of/uri?whateve r.nyud.net: 8090

Strangely enough, in this case all the links seem to work faster than their coral counterparts.

Fixed coral links:
Reuters story
NodeDB
cheesebikini

--
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M

Mayor sit in the bar... by helfen · 2004-10-24 03:45 · Score: 1

Mayor sit in the bar and said. - "And Wireless for All!". And he start to drink his beer.

The rest of the Bay Area? by SpamJunkie · 2004-10-24 04:15 · Score: 1

What about the rest of the Bay Area? I thought I heard something about great net access in Palo Alto a while ago, can anyone remind me what I'm thinking of?

OTT-London and its Olympic Bid by Insipid+Trunculance · 2004-10-24 04:16 · Score: 1

What are the odds our illustrious Mayor , Comrade Ken , will offer this or something similar to bribe Londoners to support the olympic bid.

I think Londoners dont want to pay extra council taxes for the next 8 years for the priviledge of providing Samsung ,Coca Cola et al with an advertising podium.

--
Wanted : A Signature.

The reason Cities are choosing this... by Artifakt · 2004-10-24 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

... is the real alternative sucks.
Citys aren't doing this to squeeze out private companys that want to offer service to everyone.
Cities aren't even competing with companies that want to offer service to everyone making above 30,000 $ a year, or to neigherborhoods where everyone owns their home.
Cities are looking at getting into providing access because the companies in their areas are generally targeting the top 5% of the market only. They are tired of dealing with companies that want to wire broadband only to people making 200,000 $ a year plus, and living in sufficiently large groups of interested users.
My city dropped plans to create a utilities model wireless service when the local Bell brought in a multi-tiered ADSL system that swiftly ended up competeing with local cable internet. Before that, we'd seen such problems as a small high speed provider that wanted to connect up just a few new streets, only to see the economic downturn hit, the local developers put off building houses on those streets, and their investmwent go down the toilet.
While I'm qute happy that we have some competitive interest in this area and didn't end up setting up a new local utility, we waited about 4 years for the situation to resolve itself. 4 years of businesses that weren't interested in profit margens of less than 15%, and didn't recognize when they were taking bigger risks by cherry-picking than they would have by trying to provide service to the majority.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Re:The reason Cities are choosing this... by guacamole · 2004-10-24 11:16 · Score: 1

Ugh, you don't need to make $200K per year to afford a $40 month broadband connection.

Does it not concern anyone... by Loco3KGT · 2004-10-24 04:31 · Score: 1

That you put the government in the control of the flow of information when you let them provide you with Internet access?

Is everyone ignoring China and what's happening there?

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.

Re:Does it not concern anyone... by hashbrownie · 2004-10-24 05:14 · Score: 1

That you put the government in the control of the flow of information when you let them provide you with Internet access?

That you put the government in the control of the flow of information when you let them provide you with libraries?

--
Fax Baba!
Re:Does it not concern anyone... by Loco3KGT · 2004-10-24 05:17 · Score: 1

Excellent point!

Let's put them in charge of television and newspapers now!

oh wait..

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Re:Does it not concern anyone... by geekoid · 2004-10-24 09:04 · Score: 1

"Is everyone ignoring China and what's happening there?"
get a grip. There not controlling content. It would be foolish to even attempt to.
Yes look at whats happening in Chine. The government is in a battle to control content...and losing.

If you are worried about spying, thare a three thing you need to know:
1) Encryption
2) Encryption
3) Encryption.

COntrary to the sad state of a ffairs america is in, we are not a communist country. Of course in a tryue communist society, there would be no control over information. But thats another dicussion.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Does it not concern anyone... by Loco3KGT · 2004-10-24 16:15 · Score: 1

Spying? Who gives a crap about spying. I'm on the Internet, I can't 100% protect myself no matter what.

But China does control content. /. runs stories constantly about the "Great Firewall of China". Even your beloved Google bends to their whims.

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.

Re:What's up with all the broken Coral cache links by blackburnrovers · 2004-10-24 05:13 · Score: 1

sorry about that. someone e-mailed me and let me know. when i was posting, i noticed they weren't working, and somehow tweaked them into functioning even though they were the wrong format. not sure why they still work, but i am on it for next time.

for those who don't know what we are talking about, "coralizing" a url protects the hosting servers from getting overwhelmed by the sudden traffic from slashdot. info on Coral here.

another helpful site is MirrorDot, which mirrors all the links in slashdot articles each day. good idea...

----
my adventure in blogging

Ahh, the power of **FREE!!!!** by Money+for+Nothin' · 2004-10-24 05:36 · Score: 1

Gosh, FREE!!! wireless Internet access?

So nobody is paying for it?

So the routers, APs, switches, and bandwidth is all just going to appear ex nihilo (out of nothing) to San Francisco? Out of the ether?

I don't think that's what is meant by the term "ethernet"...

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?

Wow! by nicktripp · 2004-10-24 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Something tells me that monitoring the Internet activities of the citizens of San Fransisco is about to get a lot easier. Who needs Echelon when the government can route all traffic through it's own system by giving away the access for free?

Furthermore by einhverfr · 2004-10-24 05:53 · Score: 1

This sounds like it is going to be another bloated public project where a private firm will end up with some sort of monopoly over some aspect of the service.

IMO, there is a better way---

Provide a publically run wireless network and then allow people to choose internet service providers on it. THis would help to drop prices and increase service, not by outsourcing to the private sector (this approach by itself doesn't work) but by promoting competition.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Do they really mean "all" by Jaime2 · 2004-10-24 06:31 · Score: 1

A typical 802.11b wireless access point, mounted in a public area, will only give about a 100 to 300 foot range. Remember that these things will always have to go through walls (unless everyone is expected to go outside to get internet access). That means it will take from 350 to 2500 Access Points per square mile. For 49 square miles, that's 20,000 to 125,000 Access Points to cover the city. So, truely covering the city with WiFi could easily run 12 million dollars for just the access points. Most hardware like this costs more to install than to purchase (imagine putting up an access point on a street pole using a bucket truck and a city employee -- that has to be at least $300 to wire it, screw it down, and configure it). Add another $5 million to provide a wired infrastructure for the APs, another $1M per year for management, and 1/5th of the initial cost per year for replacing dead units. Grand total -- $50 Million plus $10 Million per year. If you draw a 100% coverage Access Point grid on a map, you'll see an Access Point in front of nearly every building in the whole city. It would be cheaper in the short run and FAR cheaper in the long run to simply run fiber to everyone's house. Philadelphia is planning something similar. They estimate $10 Million to put it up and they plan to put up 16 Access Points per squre mile. Draw it on a map and you'll see that puts each Access Point 1320 feet from the nearest one. By my estimation, that will provide WiFi for a whopping 3 to 10% of the residents of Philadelphia. If you live on a street corner, you'll get a signal. The rest of the houses won't get anything without a pringles can.

Re:Do they really mean "all" by Jaime2 · 2004-10-24 06:33 · Score: 1

Sorry for the format
First time post and I didn't realize the carriage returns would disappear.

Stratellite? by Sleet01 · 2004-10-24 06:34 · Score: 1

I understand that Sanswire was recently purchased by a larger company; their plan was to provide city-wide wireless services (cell and wi-fi) via stratospheric balloons ('stratellites'). Perhaps this is the first instance?

In a non-related note: Y Kant Slashdotterz spell?!

--
-- Let him who is without spelling error ignite the first flame --

Marginal cost by Lemmy+Caution · 2004-10-24 06:37 · Score: 1

But the marginal cost of each added node is miniscule. The cost of setting up a city-wide LAN is far, far less than the cost of each of the 800,000 San Franciscans each getting wireless service. Or even, I daresay, less than the cost of 80,000 San Franciscans. That's the way infrastructure works. Do you want to have to pay, personally, for every square inch of road you drive over?

Attitude by nurb432 · 2004-10-24 06:48 · Score: 1

Its not the laws of economics that I have a problem with.

I realize that we all have a 'shared responsibly', and have no trouble with that.

The trouble I have is with the cavalier attitude the government in general has with our money. Its not theirs, its OURS.. and they should act responsibility.

Throwing around the word 'free', is indicative of the larger problem... not the specific subject at hand.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Cheeseballing hypocrit! by j+h+woodyatt · 2004-10-24 06:53 · Score: 1

I live in San Francisco. One of the reasons I voted for Gonzales instead of Newsom was that Gonzales supported the creation of a Municipal Utility District, which would have had the authority to build its own central offices for telecom services.

Does Newsom want to take away the monopoly rents for the telecom and electricity utility companies in San Francisco as the Raker Act requires? No. Now he says I'm going to get "free wireless Internet" service everywhere in San Francisco.

You know what this really is all about? They want to put up a wireless network for city emergency response teams, and they don't have the technical stones to make it an access-controlled network. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Cheeseballing hypocrit! Grrr.

--
jhw

No thanks. by Maul · 2004-10-24 07:08 · Score: 1

Well, at least not in my city, please. It sounds cool at first, but there is no such thing as "free."

This is going to end up costing all the taxpayers of the city millions more than originally speculated. Many may not use it.

It will also be wonderfully "regulated" by the city government and used to spy on the taxpayers who are paying for it.

--

"You spoony bard!" -Tellah

Any Private Industry worth a damn. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-24 07:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

such as represented by Microsoft, Boeing or any lobe of the telecomunications and broadcasting industry, is quickly recognized as having social leverage, and is thus co-opted by the government.

When the day comes for an uprising, you won't be able to trust your phone or your computer or your local air carrier to help you out.

The idea of Capitalism being an instrument of freedom is an illusion sold to stupid people.

By the way, you should learn how to spell. It makes you sound as half-assed as your ideas.

-FL

Re:Any Private Industry worth a damn. . . by Louie1462 · 2004-10-25 17:30 · Score: 1

You did have me thinking.... for a few seconds. Than I realized that your one sentence comments belong on the bumpersticker of another volvo or honda. I love it when people look past ideas and content and focus on grammar. It makes me think they have a stick up their ass. You are just another tumble weed, it won't be long till you blow away too. Louie

What's with all the whining? by targo · 2004-10-24 07:15 · Score: 1

Does everybody in SF already has free medical facilities ? Free shelter ?

There are so many posts like the parent under this article that I started wondering - when did Slashdot stop being a geek site and become a political whining ground?
When I read articles like this, the primary instinct in me is to say: 'hey, this is so cool, I wish I lived in SF' because I'm a geek first and foremost. And on the prime geek web site of the world, I would expect the discussion to be about the technical aspects of the solution, projected capabilities etc. But instead there's a bunch of whining about universal healthcare! What's up with that?

--
When men used to be men

OT: Sig by nurb432 · 2004-10-24 07:22 · Score: 1

Instead of doing it here, and be OT, check out my journal explaining what the militia is, and why my paraphrasing doesn't change the amendment's intent at all. It serves to express the actual right that is guranteed, and to cause people to think...

I do agree, veering back on topic, that in time all internet access will end up being a governmental subsidized/regulated public utility.. But that point hasn't arrived .. yet..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

So I guess everybody has accepted the. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-24 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

fact that microwave cell technology impairs brain function and has simply decided not to care.

There is a REASON governments want entire population bases bathed in specific types of EM radiation.

You stupid fucks.

I'm almost looking forward to watching you all get liquidated as the temperature continues to rise. Have you all had your mercury-laced flu shots yet? Perhaps you ought to eat another carb and sugar-rich blitz of fast food and wash it down with a refreshing diet soda complete with brain melting sweeteners. Heck, just settle down in front of your CRT's tuned to hypnotically open your minds for the insertion of socially damaging messages! --You know, to enhance your ability to think (vote) clearly.

MAN, I'm feeling grouchy today! I've really been noticing recently the millions of morons out there molding reality with their thoughtless actions, and it's annoying the PISS out of me.

The Christian Right, under Bush, WANTS the apocalypse to come. This is why they want all the Jews in Israel and all the Moslems out and they are giving them 10 billion bucks a year to help make it happen. Bush is a fucking born again right wing Christian lunatic, and this is not a joke.

But yeah, wireless sure is 'cool' man. Hope my city installs a fucking microwave tower every three hundred meters and that all my neighbors install microwave generators in every nook and cranny so that I cannot escape being exposed to the mass brain-dulling even when I choose not to participate in the wonders of technology.

When you are gurgling in painful death throws under the heel of the impending police state, I hope you'll remember my bitching and feel appropriately stupid.

-FL

Re:So I guess everybody has accepted the. . . by NaDrew · 2004-10-24 08:41 · Score: 1

When you are gurgling in painful death throws under the heel of the impending police state, I hope you'll remember my bitching and feel appropriately stupid.
Hell, I feel stupid just for reading your bitching the first time.

--
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE

haha by geekoid · 2004-10-24 08:41 · Score: 2, Funny

believe me, if they didn't have traffic lights, Jay walking would be safer. Because the city would be a constent gridlock.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:haha by elemental23 · 2004-10-24 19:41 · Score: 1

Remember, this is San Francisco we're talking about. Jaywalking here during peak hours is actually very easy because none of the cars are moving!

--
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.

You would probably pay less by geekoid · 2004-10-24 08:51 · Score: 1

The local providers will be competing with a free service. This means:
a) Cheaper then it is now.
b) More Value add services.
c) better customer service.

If it is a city service, it will be very hard to be banned.
If the City has someone running the project with to brain cells, they will set it up so you can't use it as a host.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:You would probably pay less by Grym · 2004-10-24 10:37 · Score: 1

No, the local providers will choose NOT to compete with a free service and will leave town.
Leave town?! Don't you mean sprawling, monolithic city? We're talking about San Francisco! It's a huge market. No ISP worth its salt would ignore a market that huge simply because of a little competition.
-Grym

Depends by geekoid · 2004-10-24 08:54 · Score: 1

on how they go about it. They could use incentives for the smaller group who are already setting up there own small wireless system to expand.
In twenty years, people looking back will think how progressive and forward thinking this was.

"It will also be wonderfully "regulated" by the city government and used to spy on the taxpayers who are paying for it."

thats a little paranoid. It is also another issue.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

that post was brought to you by by geekoid · 2004-10-24 08:59 · Score: 1

Pull numbers out my ass man!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I wish I lived in San Francisco. . . by uberjoe · 2004-10-24 09:33 · Score: 1

I guess there is not much hope of getting this in fresno

I don't know if Our Mayor (Yes Fresno's mayor really is "In the Heat of the Night's" Alan Autry) even knows what Wi-Fi is.

--

The days of the digital watch are numbered.

No, lights exist to control drivers by bluGill · 2004-10-24 10:46 · Score: 1

There are times where traffic lights are the safest solution to traffic problems. However in many cases a stop sign or a roundabout would be safer. However the light allows the city to control which drivers get to go.

Unfortunaly in the US we don't have many, meaning that people don't know how to react the few times they see them. Having more would make them safer here. In Europe they already have them often enough to see the safety benefits.

Re:What's up with all the broken Coral cache links by douglips · 2004-10-24 11:34 · Score: 1

They all still work because they end in a ? or a # character before you tack on the "nyud.net:8090", this means you could tack on "tubgirl.com" or "goatse.cx" and nothing would happen.

--
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M

don't forget wimax by joel2600 · 2004-10-24 14:24 · Score: 1

by the time something like this actually gets implemented, wimax will be in the beginning stages of mass adoption. with this possibility over the immediate horizon, it would seem almost nonsensical to devote so much money to technology which will be obsolete faster than something like this project can be implemented and supported.

It'll work for the east side and the flats by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2004-10-24 16:13 · Score: 1

But large portions of the city will have serious trouble with it.

My neighbourhood (Midtown Terrace) is one of those challenges. It's *extremely*hilly, and TV / Radio reception is zilch thanks to Sutro tower. One would think that living unter a TV tower would give me great reception, but, well... it doesn't work that way. My wife's car opener doesn't even work because of all the RF fro mthe damn thing. So, be tween the hills and the RF from Sutro- we're fucked. We don't even get cable TV, because the cable just act as a huge antennae for Sutro. It's a fucking mess.

On top of all that, we're really far fro mthe nearest phone building, so the only DSL we get is 384. You'd think that living literally in the middle of SF, we'd be inundated with techno gizmos, but, no.

I *DO* hope that they find a way to make this work. Although, I had to build weird faraday cages around my living room and wrap my speaker wire in lead to keep my stereo from buzzing...

RS

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.

Starbucks will do it by EvilStein · 2004-10-24 17:21 · Score: 1

There are 157 Starbucks locations within 20 miles of 94111 (Financial District)

San Francisco is *not* that big of a city.

All they need is a WiFi point in each Starbucks, and they'll pretty much cover everything in the city. :P

Obligatory Arnold quip: by ribo-bailey · 2004-10-24 17:45 · Score: 1

GIVE ZEEZ PEPOL VIRELESS!!!

Well, it does make a little difference. by orichter · 2004-10-25 11:54 · Score: 1

If everyone above the median makes $75000, and one person below the median dies, the median remains $75000. If everyone above the median makes 7.5 million, and one person below the median dies, the median is now 7.5 million. Statistically, the person you are responding to is correct, it's just that what he is saying is a tautology.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-10-26 08:24 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Looks like another tax hike ... -4 by TheCaptain · 2004-10-27 03:04 · Score: 1

You can post all of the psuedo-intellectual garbage you want, Anonymous Coward...you still haven't answered to what I said in the previous post.

This is the interesting trait I have noticed amoungst the more liberal-leftist minded people I deal with...they like to try to side-step and twist the points in an argument into something where they actually appear to have a point. Complete with made up and over-simplified figures to try to back it up. (If only the system was so simple...) You don't, however...you have the gall (as an anonymous coward, no less) to ask me for a proper response without giving me one. It's a nice try...but it's very revealing with respect to your mindset.

I am going to say this one more time - look at the numbers. Lets take Germany for example. Germany would be by far more damaged finacially by losing the U.S. market than they U.S. would be by losing the German market. You have to look at the numbers proportionatly, but you will find that it's true. Considering they are having less than stellar economic growth as it is, I am sticking to my original assertion that socialist countries are almost dependant on the existance of capitalist countries to deal with just to even sustem them as they are.

The original posting I responded to was actually almost scarey in a sense...the nation gets the best deal by using maximum buying power - that is only a small step away from that nation saying "Hey...it will be even cheaper if we just have state make what we need for us." I don't mean to throw out a strawman argument - but it has always seemed to be a slippery slope to me.

I'm sticking with a free-market economy without too many rules for entry, and without excess overhead via taxes for services I want nothing to do with...I own a business on the side. The American system is business friendly enough to make it a very very easy thing to do for yourself.

I am not responding to an Anonymous Coward anymore...this is fruitless.

Re:Looks like another tax hike ... -4 -1 by TheCaptain · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 1

You have attempted insult rather than rebuttal, my interest in your responses has ended.

I have a different perspective on things. First and foremost, you didn't give me a rebuttal. You responded with something that disagreed with my conclusion, without arguing against a single point I made. If you want to handle this like a debate, that is a very very weak rebuttal.

It's ironic that you critisize me for my response when you initially did the exact same thing. It's also ironic that you say your interest in my repsonse has ended, and then you go on to keep typing...I admit, I had originally lost interest in this, but now I am just curious if you are insane or just a troll. It doesn't seem like you lost interest at all...in fact - you even posted another repsonse below this one.

by ideology a socialist democracy or social democracy also improves the greatest number of people as possible

Actually, this is technically correct, but flawed. It does do improve the greatest number of people - by ideology. Ideology and practice are very different, however. At least they mean well...they always do.

There are so many things overlooked in that one simple statement that I don't even know where to begin.

Think of me what you will, at least I am willing to post my opinion while logged in as myself so I can be held accountable for my opinion. I have very little respect for someone who hides behind their opinion with anonymity...it's very easy to be critical of others when no one knows who you are. Slashdot often proves that. I don't have to insult you in that matter...you are effectively doing that yourself.

Re:Looks like another tax hike ... -4 -2 by TheCaptain · 2004-11-01 05:54 · Score: 1

Yet, you did not understand any of this and instead attempted to make liberal, anti-monarchist, an insult-you are an American, as you have admitted, so this was inevitable.

No...I understand pretty well actually. And I didn't attempt anything. I did or I didn't. Pick one.

I also am not an admitted American. I am an American. There is nothing to "admit" to. You are giving yourself away here - you sound as if you look at being an American as something someone should "admit" to, as if they should be ashamed of it. I am not, anymore than you should be ashamed of where you come from. I do not believe our originals make us special.

I am going to spell this out, in no uncertain terms:

I am an American. I am a Capitalist. I am a small business owner, as well as an employee of a corporation. I am not "admitting" anything. I am stating it. I am not ashamed of it anymore than you should feel ashamed of being from where ever you are from.

I am also somewhat successful at both of my financial endeavours.

I do not want to be held responsible for the health care of others unless they are willing to live their lives by my rules. I like the freedom of NOT being responsible for the healthcare of others who do not choose to lead as healthy of a life as I do. I want nothing to do with paying healthcare for a smoker. I don't smoke. I don't want to smoke. Who is a smoker to expect me to help pay their medical bills with my tax dollars when they go and give themselves cancer? Or a drunk who wrecks their car and is injured, when I don't drive at all if I have consumed alcohol. I don't want to pay for people who let themselves become obese. I don't want to pay for people to get abortions, because they were irresponsible - not me.

To me, this is freedom. I am largely free from paying for other people's vices. I only have to pay for my own.

I also like the companies offering me healthcare insurance to have to compete. I think the ideal solution to healthcare would be to create real competition in the industry. Currently, companies subsidize healthcare through one single provider - let the employees choose their providers and just offer an amount that the company will contribute instead. Competition will always give you a better result than a buearocracy full of union drones that almost can't lose their jobs. The key is specifying what they are competing to deliver explicitly. I am an engineer. We do this all the time, and the contracts get awarded to the lowest bidder who will deliver the product that we want - to the exact specifications that we want.

Competition would be the truely Captalist solution to healthcare. Capitalism by it's nature and ideology will always get things done as efficiently as possible. That is not to say that there should be no rules - it need not be Laissez-faire (actually, it should NOT be), but the rules should be as simple as possible, and as few as is needed to protect all parties involved.

My votes go for my interests. That is human nature. Deny it if you will, but doing so has a historical track record of ending badly in the long run.

Slashdot Mirror

San Fran Mayor Declares Wireless for All

177 of 272 comments (clear)