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.
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/
In Pennsylvania the state runs the liquor stores. That's why the first thing you see when crossing to New Jersey is about a dozen liquor stores.
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.
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
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.