San Fran Mayor Declares Wireless for All
arvind s. grover writes "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stated yesterday in his state of the city address that every San Francisco resident will have free wireless internet access. They don't seem to have much set up yet, and no proposal was laid out for the installation of access points in every nook and cranny of the city. I wonder what vendor is going to get that contract...You might be better off finding a wireless node using NodeDB or this oddly-titled site: cheesebikini."
Is this mayor going to pay for this.
Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class
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.
I guess that means that THIS guy will finally get online! http://www.dkrupa.com/comics/28.jpg
How many spammers live in San Francisco? How many will move there?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.