Slashdot Mirror
Chicago To Consider City-Wide Wireless Network
Mitchell writes "Chicago Indymedia reports on developments pertaining to community internet in Chicago. A press release from the Center for Neighborhood Technology reports that the city's Finance Committee has commissioned a study to explore the possibility of low-cost wireless internet across the city of Chicago, and reserve Chicago's right to establish a citywide Wi-Fi network. It could run into efforts underway now in the state capital by Big Telecom to shut out muni Internet in Illinois." Several readers also pointed to the Chicago Tribune's story on this possibility, including efforts to head off regulation which would make municipal Wi-Fi difficult.
Of course, that'll also have the effect of putting more people on the internet, which will result in Googles having to have to beef up their search indices on "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bears", "Ditka", and "Polish Sausage".
How will MSN respond? fp
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
More than 100 U.S. municipalities are considering deploying wireless city-wide networks. In this article, Network Computing's Dave Molta contends that such networks will stifle competition and will be an expensive mistake.
6 0300027
more here:
http://informationweek.mobilepipeline.com/
But you don't see me blabbering about it on Slashdot.
The Bean is no more than a monstrous Wi-Fi hax0r antenna!
Something else to damage our DNA?
in three days, we'll read a story about how the Illinois legislature is banning municipal wireless.
grandfather clause. It is sad that they have to rush this to implementation just to beat the legislation out the door.
I wish the states would run grocery stores and perhaps clothing stores. Would be much nicer to have a lower bill at the end of each week.
I'm amazed that neither San Francisco (who was also thinking of this idea) or Chicago are worried about people messing with these city wide wi-fi networks. Can anyone help give further insight into that problem?
I just think it would possibly be an issue when they have people connecting and then more "computer literate" people scanning the networks for files, boredom (malice), etc.
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
...at least in cities like Seattle. Chicago should be about the same.
see, theres already a bazillion free wifi hotspots. get a group to map 'em out (if they havent already), and bingo. you have free wireless almost anywhere you go.
http://www.seattlewireless.net/
To sum up 90% of the upcoming posts
"This will show those monopolistic telcos"
"Those monopolistic telcos will stop this, damn them"
"This stifles business and is a wicked commie plot"
"Its socialism not communism, you dumb rednecks"
"This is all Bush's fault"
"Why are you bringing politics into this"
"Local government should stay out of the business sector"
"You mean like public roads"
"This is a even better/worse plan than Philly, they really suck/know what they're doing"
"Will they use OSS?"
I dont even live near any place that has WiFi, but all this publicity about it on /. already makes my head hurt.
.
Seriouslly, do people care that some train in translyvania is covered with WiFi and how there's public WiFi access in
We know its possible, but give us some interesting trivia about it which doesnt involve some municipality covering blocks with WiFi. I'm sure they will post this information in the vicinity of brain burning radiation sources, I personally dont really want to know about every city where I need to wear ye old tin hat.
As Dave Molta's article states/ 60300027
http://informationweek.mobilepipeline.com
muni WiFi is a bad idea. Many here are mentioning the waste of money, etc. But what about the choice of technology? The article says they want to deploy this with Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi was NOT designed as a wide area network technology. You only have 11 channels to work with and, realistically, only 3 because they overlap in the spectrum.
What about interference with user's home networks? It's bad enough that every Joe Computer has a wireless gateway set up in his room, but now those default-configured devices are going to suffer from an a/b/or g network flyin around the whole city.
The limitations of WiFi will cause a terrible quality of service, probably equating to slow dial up speeds with many disconnects as multiple users are trying to share this limited bandwidth.
Not to mention that it is difficult to imagine that the government is actually going to support and maintain this deployment as they should. Seems as if they are discussing setup costs and not Total Cost of Ownership.
I live in Chicago and this is a BAD idea. All I need is one of the MOST corrupt governments in the U.S. competing the private telecoms out of business and for all intents and purposes controlling the INTERNET in Chicago.
use this new network for *GASP* playing VIOLENT GAMES! http://news.com.com/Illinois+seeks+to+restrict+vio lent+games/2100-1043_3-5593248.html
I doubt that the city would run its own mail servers... if they don't filter port 25, drive-by spamming would be facilitated, and if they do, the utility of the service will be dramatically affected for the "common man", unless everyone gets a webmail account.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I'm assuming Bean Town's WiFi will be called Bean Net, or maybe Bean WiFi.
Givin that, won't it be great fun to read about the latest gang cruising around in their warganging initiation?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
with the very likely (lack) of security on this deployment, every wardriving script-kiddie who wants to cause some havoc will be there having a grand ol time.
See you all in Chicago!
That lasted for about 6 months. Then December came, along with about a foot of snow. This covered up all the warchalking runes and made finding open networks a little harder.
Unfortunately, war-pissing never caught on, and war-chalking has become much less popular (see, e.g.: ) so I bought a little handheld wireless sniffer, and it's worked ok for those times I was desperate for an internet connection. But a municipal wireless network would be 100 times better. It would save a lot of time having to sniff around, and would have much more consistent and reliable coverage.
And the result is rather the opposite; a long list of companies emerged as a direct result of that: AnyWi, Gandalf, Wido and half a dozen others. Making Leiden and the direct region something of a WiFi focal point.
I would not call that effect "stiffling"... the only few people stiffed may be some big incumbents which where to slow to move.
Dw
from your article:
"Interestingly, the report only briefly touches on the immense technical obstacles associated with delivering broadband Wi-Fi services across a metropolitan area, especially in the 2.4-GHz band. Wi-Fi is a LAN technology that is well suited for many applications, ranging from home networking to enterprise LAN services to public hotspots. But using it for broadband wireless WAN services has always struck this pundit as ill advised. That's one of the key reasons 802.16 is viewed by many as a more strategic metropolitan wireless technology."
WiMax is the right solution.
Vote for Pedro
... I wholeheartedly support plans by cities to deploy their own wireless networks. Especially those cities and counties that private companies have failed to adequately supply. The market has become too uptight and created an artificial scarcity, and it needs competition from municipalities to shake it out of its complacency.
The new regulations outlawing such measures are completely brain-dead, and do harm to the competitive environment while espousing "libertarian" values. Hell, even the venerable CATO Institute has become nothing more than a shill for corporations, and lost its ability to be objective and realistic.
From my perspective as a staunch Libertarian it is becoming increasingly clear that mixed economies provide the best soil for healthy competition, and that they do a better job of supporting the human and technological infrastructure required to foster a healthy economy.
Now, let the real competition begin!
-- thinkyhead software and media
State and local taxes are deductable. Any city that provides a service like this is getting a tax subsidy from the rest of us.
So, from a strictly self-interest stand point, cities should continue to provide more and more services, since that will lower their overall Federal tax burden.
Of course, that means more federal debt and eventually more taxes for the rest of us.
So the next time you wonder how it is a city can have high taxes and not be hurt much economically, remember that the federal government is making it possible.
This entry by an economist comments on the situation in New York City.
I go to a Univerity of Wisconsin School. Our on Campus apartments were built before running CAT5 was popular. The school's solution was to put in 802.11B! Let me tell you how you make a T1 fed to your building act like a dial-up. I do average about 3K here, it's awesome! Nevermind that all of the people here with Windowz machines spread virus' like the plauge! And you have to remember this is with a community of about only 400 students.
Why aren't telcom companies providing muni WiFi?
Because it's a stupid idea. WiFi was designed for short range LANs. The telcom companies are waiting for 802.16 (WiMax) to provide broadband wireless access. When the low power version is available (802.16e), they'll support mobile as well.
Vote for Pedro
Government should set the minimums for society. This won't be the best connection ever, but it will be a connection.
The bar was originally set by libraries offering internet access. Now the government (Chicago) is just raising it slightly indicating that every citizen should have free and clear access.
This won't do anything to dissuade me from giving up my DSL because I like having someone to call and yell out when it isn't working (and all I need to do is reset the modem... but at 6am, I'm not all that rational).
And the cost? Well, that could be the sticky wicket in all of this, but at least I'm not going to shoot the idea out of the sky before I see some numbers.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Folks,
Put aside your geekiness for a minute (I'm a huge WiFi user, too) and consider the unfairness and inefficiency of government-supplied Wifi.
My argument against municipal Wifi is two-fold:
1) Internet access is a "nice to have" convienence but hardly a public necessity (like roads, schools, etc.). By creating a government-sponsored network, you inevitably impose taxes on many folks who will never use, nor want, a wireless network.
2) Government rarely does anything right, except create more government. I don't know about Chicago but my city (San Antonio, TX) can't even fill the countless deep potholes that are springing up everywhere. Do you trust these people to deliver you a secure, fast, stable network? Do you want to pay *THEM* to deliver this network?
Wireless networks are best left to commercial entities. If the city government wants to do something to promote a private, low-cost municipal network, lobby your city council members to provide free/reduced-cost access of utility/light poles to the deploying company in exchange for subsidized access fees for the poor (or better yet, low fees all across the board).
To me, it looks like this is just more of Mayor Daley's posturing against Govenor Rob Blagojevich. Just another chapter in the rich history that is Chicago politics. I'll believe it when I see it. Or more accurately, can access it (freely). Luke.....
Where I'm from, Calgary Alberta (Canada!), we have a 'wireless city' http://wifinetnews.com/archives/001821.html
:)
Or at least, so is the 'hype', but let me explain how it is:
- Only a small portion of the city is, notably a portion of the downtown ocre
- Any one MAC address is only allowed one hour online at a time.
I realize the article is proposing more then what we have up here, but I was pretty impressed with what my city has done.
Basically, I can go out for lunch, and avoid some bad legal problems if I'm to use my work network for home coding, or what have you. An hour's just perfect for me: but if I want more, it's a Telus (http://www.telus.com/) hotspot, so naturally I can buy more minutes.
I'd love to see this spread city wide, but I'm not really sure the point: taxes would probably have to go up, and either noone will use it when they can use their home networks (over only using an hour a day), etc.
That said, it's a nice on-ramp, it's good for visitors, and I personally like it.
- - - -
KickingDragon
If some of these anti-muni wifi laws get put into place let's adopt the ways of our enemy. Let's whittle these laws down to size by pushing our congress men/women to make loopholes you can drive a truck through. After enough loophole laws, these anti-muni wifi laws will look like swiss cheese.
What about Wi-Fi in my city? All I here is that people are offering Wi-Fi in cities other than Houston, my home city. Why doesn't the government spend the money in a better way and Wi-Fi all the major (mostly capitol and other big cities, like Houston) cities throughout America. It seems like a nice idea to me.
Pat
as long as they accept that other are in that space as well. If they pull a fast one and try to claim eminent(sp) domain, well, that is BS.
11b is nice and slow and CHEAP. There is new technology being developed that is much faster, able to penetrate buildings, etc. etc. But with Chicago doing a low-end cheap system, they set the bar for what they are willing to accept from somebody else. Hopefully, they will also resist the urge to offer monopolies. This can be a win-win all the way around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I would say that is changing very rapidly however.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
No real libertarian would support a govt based wireless muni network. The reason telcom companies are not providing metro WiFi access is they are a lot smarter than local politicians. They are waiting for WiMax deployment, which is the right solution for the problem. When your local govt wastes your money on a WiFi network, you'll be stuck with it while other comunities are get much better perfomance with WiMax for a lot lower cost. No telcom company will want to compete with your "free" but lousy network.
Vote for Pedro
Wifi is intended for home or office use where you have a limited number of users. It just doesn't scale up right to the municipal level. Why not wait a few years for next gen technology specifically geared to municipal uses and avoid the slowdowns, workarounds and frustration that implementing wifi today would cause.
They're just for people with cushy cars. If you really need to get somewhere, you could walk, ride a mountain bike, or buy a Jeep.
The government ought to stop subsidizing people who are too lazy or short-sighted to navigate the terrain they live in.
I guarantee that they're spending $100 on pavement for every dollar they might spend on internet access. If you want to address the real problem, demand that they stop sinking so much of our tax dollars into paved roads!
I know I'm going to get some flames for this because quite a lot of Slashdotters seem to believe that everything should be free, but I'm not absolutely comfortable with free city-sponsored wireless.
Telecom companies rank just below HMOs on the vileness scale, but having Chicago put up wireless APs everywhere is not going to result in a socialist Internet dream where the city pays for your pr0n downloads. What it does result in is some lucky corporation's dream, where everyone in Chicago pays the city (some more indirectly than others) to pay a single contracted telecom to give them wireless Internet.
Not everyone is going to use this service. That's OK, not everyone uses the school system, but we all pay for it...but in this case, I'm not even sure that a clear majority in Chicago use the Internet. And even if they do, some use it much less than others. Most Slashdotters probably would have a hard time going back from their broadband accounts to $10/mo dialup, but the average person who checks their AOL email once a day is probably under no pressure to switch anytime soon.
Furthermore, due to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, which I firmly believe in, I expect the city would end up having to do (or contract out) major security work to handle people with too much time on their hands. The issue of censorship comes up as well -- the city now acts as the ISP for a host of activities that may include breaking Illinois state law. This can probably be ironed out, but why deal with it at all?
As much as I love getting stuff free, I have to say that this screams "boondoggle". The potential waste and corruption (this is the Chicago city government we're talking about) of a deal like this, as well as the small number of potential beneficiaries, makes me very dubious.
What do I like better? Portland's Personal Telco Project. It's not sponsored by (read: under control of) the city government. It's done by private contributors who choose their own ISP, allowing a wider range of solutions to be chosen, are responsible for the cells of their own network, and -- apparently -- make group decisions by consensus as opposed to mandate (as the city would be the primary controller of a municipal network, I'm guessing most decisions would be by mandate of some controlling committee). There is also less potential for fuckwad-related damage, since the people who put these up generally are nerds or assisted by nerds who know what they're doing. In short, it's much more decentralized and, IMHO, essentially more free.
Of course, it's not as easy to get city-wide municipal Internet the Personal Telco way as it is to simply tell all your fellow citizens to pay for a luxury that you want.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
I'm not concerned about the legislation at all. Any wireless network will not be operated by the City. It will go to a city contractor--like everything else here in Chicago. You have to remember that Chicago is a city where you have contractors that do nothing but sit in trucks.
I am also not worried about the telco's blocking a city-wide network. If Daley can completely ignore the FAA, I think he can handle the telco's and the FCC.
Paved crowds are not even close to being analogous to internet access. First of all, your argument concerning the amount of money spent is not at issue at all. Where did I ever say that it would cost too much? Answer: I did not. The government does not need to step in everytime there is a service that people would like to have - especially when that service can be provided by a company. Certainly companies could crop up and establish toll roads on their own but the free and easy movement of the citizenry is vital to the functioning of the country. I would say that letting the poor or cheap onto the Internet is not vital to the functioning of the country. Furthermore, private companies already exist that provide Internet access. Let the consumer deal directly with the companies - not using the taxman as a middle man between companies that provide Internet access and the city government. Honestly, paved roads is your best argument? Please...
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
Yes I do.
of the Chicagoland area, I've learned a few things about the way things are done in Chicago:
Granted, I like the idea of a city-wide WiFi network. But I know that if Chicago adopted WiFi, Daley and Co. would find some way to poison the well and ruin everything for everybody.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Why is that changing rapidly? What evidence do you have? Please expound on your point. I am interested in your logic.
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
That works until you hit the alternative minimum tax. Then you get no further deductions for higher local taxes.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
After Ring the Fing A, it looks like their "pondering" is in the direction of letting some as yet unknown company rent space on their light and electric poles.
Said company would charge people say 20$ a month for a password to connect to the service (or something like that) and said company would pay the city "rent" for the pole space.
This is in no way the free municipal wifi that people are daydreaming of. This is merely a city trying to find a way to cash in on the wifi craze by renting their property.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
If the past is any measure, expect a Illinois state law banning local cities from offering free 802.11
Yes, Houston is indeed looking at it. Dwight Silverman, tech writer for the Chron has written a column on it.
I kin hardly wait to dump both DSL AND phone by SBC and go VOIP over wifi....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
network .
i .org/elib/publish/article_2698.asp
Cities are looking at deploying wireless networks so that Joe Sixpack can get a connection. Chicago is looking to expand their public safety network with a wireless solution like mesh networking.
http://www.pti.org/toforum.asp?pref=http://www.pt
Verizon isn't goint to be able to stop wireless public safety networks from going up when its a cops life or the ability to do his job at risk.
Will they be offering this to anyone that drives into town and turns on their wifi card?
What about visitors that havent paid local taxes...
What about the evil 'terrorists' that use the network for evil...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They can't even execute a recycling program for which a proven model already exists (NY). You think they could pull this off?
I DON'T THINK SO
First, a compliment: I really like your nickname. Your website is a horrible mess though.
Government providing services isn't socialism. Wikipedia has some good articles on all the -isms and if you read those you'd gain more understanding than I could provide here. Really, spend some time looking up and understanding socialism (and communism, capitalism, fascism, etc too).
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
What's this newsgroup for, anyway?
...run by the people who gave you bad roads, teachers who won't teach, libraries with ten year out of date tech books, raises for city councilmen every five point two seconds, politically motived abuse of zoning regulations, nepotism as a way of life, back-room deals with local crime bosses, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Yeah, this is a really good idea. I can hardly wait for my next 5291% increase in property evaluation. I'm sure it's worth it so the kids in my neighborhood can get free high-speed wireless porn.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
>the only few people stiffed may be some big incumbents which where to slow to move.
Exactly. Companies have had years to lease the lightpoles and give us city-wide wirless and they just havent. The dinosaurs dont want to do it and I'm sick of waiting for them to act. The city might as well do it and send the entire metropolis into the 21st century. Broadband penetration in the Chicagoland area isnt too hot and is mainly the local phone monopoly vs the local cable monopoly. Cell carriers aren't helping much with their expensive and low-bitrate networks.
Ideally, Id like to see this as an extension of the mission of the city libraries. The city already provides net connections for the netless all over the city and now would just be extending that mission to everyone.
and that would be true if we weren't talking about CHICAGO. You know who the Mayor of Chicago is right? Well let me clue you in his name is Richard M. Daley, and he GETS HIS WAY.
*points to where Meigs Field use to be*
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
I disagree with the interpretation. Satisfying a small part of socialism doesn't make it socialist. The whole thing has to be that way. For example, the ownership of the system isn't exactly collective, and the economic structure that it works in isn't cooperative. The phone companies are still free to offer their private services in a competitive manner without worrying that the town is going to take over the phone companies networks.
These are VERY important parts of socialism, and it's a mistake to say that every service that a typical city government provides or might provide equals socialism.
Let me know when the City of Chicago forces the cable company to accept city management, city personnel running the cable plant, city ownership of the wires on the poles and fiber underground, and city planning of the business operations. In that case, we can start doing some REAL discusssions about the socialism in Chicago.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Are you not misrepresenting what I said?
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
Basically, you are a moron, sir.
Although the internet IS considered (at the moment) a luxury, it should NOT be consided such.
*Putting on the predictive glasses*
In the very near future, folks who are not internet savvy will be considered illiterate, and backwards.
Soon everyone will require the internet to go about their daily business.
*taking off the predictive glasses*
Having said that, I will now assert that the State's act of NOT ensuring equal provision of basic internet access to all should be a criminal act, likened to not providing equal education to all.
Yes, a business may provide the service in the area.
Is it affordable to the poor? NO.
Can the poor get out of poverty without having knowledge of the internet? Possibily. Surely not as easily though. Therefore not having internet access is an impediment to escaping poverty.
You might say though, that the state does not have an obligation to elevating the poverty stricken.
If so, I would call you a Republican
I believe that the state should offer a basic level of access to all, and then let businesses offer a higher speed verion for people who want to pay for it. That is how education works (the wealthy can pay for private schools) and I think the internet should be treated in a similar manner.
Flame On Bastards
The obvious answer is that the state doesn't provide the hardware but rather provides the training. And I agree with that completely just as I would agree that a knowledge of the internet and working with it should be given to students in public schools. Outside of school though, the internet is a luxury and the poor can view it as a luxury to strive for.
Why did you call me a moron anyway? Is it simply because I disagree with you? It seemed out of line to me.
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
"It could run into efforts underway now in the state capital by Big Telecom to shut out muni Internet in Illinois."
Apparently, you are not familiar with Mayor Daley. You see, in the US, the state legislates the city, but in Chicago, the city legislates the state.
Just to be clear, the AC who responded to you wasn't me. I've said far worse in the past, but always under my own nickname...
I read the "step towards socialism" but I don't think that what is happening here. The government providing services isn't the distinguishing factor in socialism. Socialism is an economic system where cooperation is emphasized over competition. If the various cities were to for example "nationalize" the telecom company, putting the city into ownership and management of the telecom company, that would be a step towards socialism. If cities were to FORBID anyone else from providing the same service that the city provides, that would be socialism (because wireless service is not something that is naturally exclusive of competition).
There's no step towards socialism here. Anyone else can come in and offer wireless service, either for free or as a pay service. The cities aren't stopping them at all.
Anyway, the main distinction is that socialism is an economic system based on cooperation, whereas capitalism is based on competition.
I think that more directly addresses the part of the point which you feel is important.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
You see - other companies can come in and compete but it's a much different marketplace for a company to come into than a marketplace where they are competing against a private company. And the fact that citizens can't opt out of paying taxes for the city's WiFi makes your statement that competition is completely free and open a bit faulty. Now, the end result of all this is that cities who are providing WiFi are going to drive out private companies. From there, you get rural sections of a state seeing their counterparts in the cities receiving free internet access and suddenly they're lobbying their state lobbyists for the same access. And it's easy to see that if all the states start providing WiFi, overhead can be reduced by nationalizing and suddenly you've got the government providing yet another "service" that is a luxury and should be supplied by a private company.
I am all for smaller government. I believe your view of government differs from this and that is where we are running into the disagreement. I'd also like it noted that the AC who calls me a moron gets modded up while bad-mouthing socialism gets me modded down. Ah, that wonderful Slashdot moderation system in all its glory - mods always moderate based on their own personal opinions. Of course, the editors set such a poor example, what else is to be expected?
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
This "wonderful idea" for 802.11 hot spots, which are essentially coverage circles that are 30 meters in diameter will be obsolete in 3 years.
Anybody trying to use 802.11 (aka WiFi) to cover an entire city must be either clueless in technology or a politician.
The proper solution for this is just now emerging, in the form of 802.16a (aka WiMax) which gives coverage circles larger than 5Km, which can be used to provide city wide coverage, without too much pain. (Google it, there's plenty of stuff out there.)
WiFi was designed to get rid of that last 30 meters of Ethernet cable. and for that it serves well. People have been trying to use it in so many applications that it was never designed for.
www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
Yes, it was an oversight on my part. Initially I was interpreting your words step towards socialism pretty much as socialism. I didn't see it as a big difference in meaning, but now I'm paying attention to it.
Consider this: if I am a citizen of a city where there is WiFi that my tax dollars are funding - why would I choose to pay for internet access from a private company?
Because the private company offers things that the city wouldn't offer. For example,
-fast service in your own home, which won't degrade when it rains
-mail servers
-web space
-better tech support
-gobs of extras like what AOL offers
-newbie support and education
-static IP's
-support for that funky WAN IPSEC thingy your company makes you use at home
-service agreements that let you officially use the connection to make money or support your business
-service agreements that let you run high bandwidth servers
-privacy guarantees
-I could go on and on. It's not likely that a citywide wireless network is going to offer anything even remotely close to what a private company could cheaply provide. But, it sure will be damn handy to have a connection from the city park to my own server running on a DSL line in my home that I pay for.
There are countless examples of private organizations competing directly with city services successfully. Bookstores compete with libraries. Security companies provide security in competition with local police. In the town where I live there's a company that you can pay to haul away junk, even though the city will do it for free; they are more convenient in many ways.
I would be paying twice in such a system.
With money that would increase because your town would be a nicer place to live. My hometown (Austin) is giving Home Depot a TEN MILLION dollar tax break to move a few hundred employees there. If they didn't cough up the subsity, then they would go to some other place instead of Austin. What exactly is the difference between making a city attractive to businesses because of a nice computer infrastruture, or with a tax break? You might be paying twice for internet access, but if you run a dry-cleaner business in town, your increased business from the new Home Depot call center might increase many times that.
I am all for smaller government. I believe your view of government differs from this and that is where we are running into the disagreement.
I'm for government, I don't care what size. So yes, it's different. I really don't care if I pay 99.9% in taxes if I'm getting the benefit, for example a billion dollars a year in income. I am obviously using an extreme example here! It should be obvious to any businessman that just cutting expenditures is NOT the secret to success. You spend money where it makes sense, and you save it where it doesn't. Our governments need to do the same thing. If a $100,000 a year wireless network expenditure means that 2000 people in my town get jobs at $95,000 a year, then YES, the government should get bigger (provide the wireless service).
It's a smart business decision.
And it's easy to see that if all the states start providing WiFi, overhead can be reduced by nationalizing and suddenly you've got the government providing yet another "service" that is a luxury and should be supplied by a private company.
And here I see the "step towards Socialism" part. I disagree with this for two reasons:
1) It's a slippery slope argument, and I basically find them unpersuasive all by themselves. It's possible that all states would provide WiFi and the service would NOT be nationalized. Garbage collection is not nationalized, and neither is the service of evicting delinquent renters (provided by the local Sheriff). Both are universal, neither are nationalized. I could give a lot more examples.
2) Even if WiFi service were to be nationalized, there would need to be the additional step of preventing competition. This hasn't happened historically, and even in the case of a national army we have always had contracting companies providing services to the military. We even have contractors in Iraq with M-16's, performing security duties that the regular army could provide.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
What the fuck is the internet?
I see that someone else already chimed in but seeing your post marked Insightful shows that too many people here have no concept of what a Libertarian is.
The first rule is that Libertarians do not look to the government for a solution that can be provided by the people, which in turn means companies/corporations.
We do not look to take money at gunpoint from another just so we have something without fully paying for it.
No what you are is this offshoot that calls itself Libertarian but is nothing more than a bunch of socialists who are trying to co-op a superior name are yours is tarnished beyond all belief.
Mixed economies do not include governments where the government uses its unfair advantage of monopoloy, emininent domain, and threat of jail to compete.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Unfortunately, the parent's point about "wireless networks being best left to commercial entities" is really only applicable where competition exists! There is no (real) competition for the regional "baby bell" telcos, because they own the infrastructure, and are regulated (badly) by the various state corporation commissions. The local municipalities are at the mercy of whatever timeframe and limits the telcos place on upgrading that infrastructure. OTOH, most cable companies are regulated at the municipal or county level, where the local governments can use the "big stick" of not renewing the cable company contracts for service. The difference in improved broadband access (between the telco & the cable provider) is remarkable.
Fairfax County, VA has Verizon for their telco, and Cox Cable for their cable service. The county specified the percentage of broadband access provided, as well as the timeframe that it could happen in, under threat of replacing Cox with another provider. So far, Cox has been rolling out broadband cable access right on schedule. OTOH, Verizon has been very slow to upgrade their infrastructure (POTS) for DSL access. Verizon doesn't answer to the county, but to the state, so there is no possibility of overturning Verizon's monopoly "applecart" at the county or municipality level.
Competition is a fair means to bring broadband access to a county or a region, and anything that a municipality can do to help foster that competition is fair game (in my book). The telcos' rush to squash municipal competition in WiFi access by doing an end-run with state legislatures is an unmitigated grab for continued monopolistic power that does not bode well for the consumer.
The underlying question that the citizens need to be asking their state legislatures is "Does the state grant monopoly status to corporations for the benefit of its citizens, or for the benefit of its corporations?" Increasingly (at least in these United States of America), the answer is in favor of the corporate monopolists. And considering which political party is in control of most state legislatures these days, it is a foregone conclusion that the corporate monopolists will win. In the USA, at least, our neocon politicians do have an ethos (of sorts): they stay "bought" by their corporate masters.
NO CARRIER
NO CARRIER
Can't WImax cell sizes be increased and decreased depending on the density of the area.Thus solving this problem.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
If people wanted to make money selling WiFi in Chicago, they woulda, shoulda, coulda already done it. They haven't. Nobody pays for WiFi in public spaces because there are too many Intelligentsia(TM) (an indy coffee house supplier) coffee houses giving it away to get some customer loyalty. Hotels downtown practically MUST have free wifi, or they would lose so many small business meetings.
Conclusion: WiFi is good for the city, but it does not offer enough margin to provide adequate business incentive. Therefore it is a PRIME candidate for a public works project. Furthermore, to curb abuses (like invasion of others' privacy for a fee) involved with network snooping and identity theft, the infrastructure could benefit greatly from city regulation. Also, just because the city runs the program doesn't mean there's no business involved. The city could create a standardized stable base of demand, and subcontract hotspots to sealed-bid contractors.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Daley will get his way. I didn't RTFA but I live on the outskirts of chicago and hear about this almost every night either on the news or reading the paper. The major factor for this wi-fi deployment is for public saftey. They want to upgrade the infastructure so that the public saftey apperatice can access information in a time sensative manner. The network will also tie into the emergency manaagement system for the city. The city has already at least 500 miles of fiber that is can use as it wants. http://www.pti.org/toforum.asp?pref=http://www.pti .org/elib/publish/article_2698.asp this is just an extention of public saftey and I for one and all for it.
My Doom. The gift that keeps on giving
With 802.11s being discussed by Intel, maybe we'll see (though I doubt it), a populist WiFi: when the 802.11s APs become cheap, people just go around nailing 'em to telephone poles, sitting them in apartment windows, etc. and end up with a self-organizing mesh network not run by the city OR the telco - except for where it connects to the backbone trunks of course... someone somewhere will have to pay for that. Personally, it'd be convenient if that were another small charge on my utilities bill.
But your argument for adopting WiFi is that it would make the city a nicer place to live, right? Wouldn't providing those added features also make the city a nicer place to live? I realize that this is another slippery slope argument and I agree that those are not on the most solid logical footing but I don't think it is that far-fetched to believe that when the government starts to provide luxuries, the citizens will, over time, come to expect more and more. I believe that this would have a direct impact on how citizens view their government and what the government's responsibilities are. Furthermore, government agencies consistently request more funding - the rationale for requiring more money would be to provide any of the numerous additions you mention. In that way, the city's internet service would continue to erode the marketplace. And let's also consider the additions you cite. You and I may have use of such facilities but the majority of citizens aren't very technically inclined, for these people the city's WiFi would be good enough. What does that lead to? A smaller marketplace for those services [if the government is indeed not providing them] and that leads to higher prices for you and I if the market even remains large enough for a competiting company to stay in business. I realize that this is quite a bit of hypothesis and that there are quite a few lynch pins holding the ideas in place [most of which you probably take exception to] but I do believe that the above is not outside the realm of possibility.
As for your statement regarding spending tax money to generate jobs - that's not convincing at all. I can just as easily say that if the money remains in the hands of the private individuals, the economy of the area will be healthier with more people spending their money and thus more companies will be attracted to the area and create more jobs. Just to show why your argument isn't going to fly, let's say that with the increased spending on the economy, 2500 jobs at $95,000 a year are brought to the area. Do you see why I am unconvinced by the whole thing? And look at the history of countries where 100% of the money goes directly to the government. Is history on your side here?
I am of the opinion that nationalization always leads to mediocre wages for those directly involved in the service. Continue to add more and more "services" that the government provides and suddenly, everyone is making the same amount of money and there's no way to climb up the ranks of society.
WiFi in the park could be provided by a private company. Why not let a private company manage it? Quite a few people would probably have no interest in WiFi while they're in the park. Why should they have to sudsidize it so that you can surf the internet from a park bench? Everyone needs water. Everyone needs police protection. Everyone needs fire services. Everyone does not need WiFi in the park. I for one would have no interest in that. If I am in a park, I do not need internet access. I am there to enjoy the park - not read Slashdot. And you might say that people could work from the park if they had internet access. And that's true - I prefer to only work at my workplace and once I leave there, know that I am completely free. That's my right and it is other's right to work from the park. But there's not 100% coverage here. Not all the population would have need for WiFi. What about people that don't even own computers? Why should they be paying tax money for this service? To make the city attractive to companies? I would say that spending that tax money in making a world class public education system would be a much better use of money and would help to increase the attractiveness of the city just as much as free WiFi. And if the number of people who want WiFi in the park is so high [as you must think it is], a private company will crop up to provide that service to those who need it.
I realize that this
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.