Slashdot Mirror


Tempe City-Wide Wireless Snags

Triumph The Insult C writes "About a month ago, the dot carried a story about the city of Tempe, AZ, laying claim to be the first major metropolitan area to provide city-wide broadband internet access. Well, things haven't gone exactly as planned, as one of the companies involved, MobilePro Corp, is now being investigated by the state for not holding the appropriate permits. As a resident of downtown Tempe, I hope the rollout isn't successful, as I would much prefer to see a more community-based effort, such as in Seattle, Austin, and New York City."

108 comments

  1. New York CITY?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a rope! /obscure

    1. Re:New York CITY?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pick up the original. Pick up the Pace.

  2. Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Socialism, pure and simple.

    How can they hate freedom so much?

    1. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world is doing it so it has to be good.

      Really, what would you rather have, freedom or safety?

    2. Re:Socialism by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

      Really, what would you rather have, freedom or safety?

      Freedom and safety.

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    3. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -some dead guy

  3. Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    About a month ago, the dot carried a story

    The "dot"?

    1. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      totally agreed..."the dot" sucks ass...

    2. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, the Slash sounds cooler.

      Hey Frank, you check the Slash today? vs. Hey Frank, you check out the Dot today?

      Yep, much cooler.

    3. Re:Wha? by slapout · · Score: 0

      Didn't Sun say they are "the dot in dot.com"?

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    4. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you prefer "the Slash"? OK, "the Slash" it is.

      Geez, some people just gotta have it their way ...

    5. Re:Wha? by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Personally, the Slash sounds cooler.

      Doesn't sound very cool to me ... more like body-temperature. But if you're into watersports...

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new Java-based overlords.

    7. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you know the dot. Or, maybe the poster meant this dot?

    8. Re:Wha? by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 2, Funny

      Worst. abbreviation^Wbastardization. ever.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    9. Re:Wha? by falzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > The "dot"?

      The Department of Transportation.

    10. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      About a month ago, the dot carried a story

      The "dot"?


      Right, that's _Mr._ dot to you, bub.

      -Anonymous Phil
    11. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even cooler: Hey Frank, you get laid today?

    12. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Personally, the Slash sounds cooler.

      What are we?
      Pompous, degenerate, rock freaks like The Edge?

      Just 'Slash' sound waaay better.

    13. Re:Wha? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      > The "dot"?

      The Department of Transportation.


      Then it should be the DOT.

    14. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're one of those people who're allergic to shift keys.

    15. Re:Wha? by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      No. They said they were the dot in .com.

  4. A dream.. by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1

    It would be great to see the wireless internet as a city utility (like phone, electricity, etc). A dream, but a also a hope...

    1. Re:A dream.. by BlogPope · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It would be great to see the wireless internet as a city utility (like phone, electricity, etc). A dream, but a also a hope...

      A regulated monopoly run as a for profit company? Why would you dream about that?

      --
      My other car is a Popemobile
    2. Re:A dream.. by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Last time I checked, my phone and electricity didn't come out of the town's taxes. Sure, they're government price-controlled utilities (because they're monopolies), but they're still run by private companies. Here in upstate NY, I make my checks out to Niagara Mohawk and Verizon.

      --
      The space unintentionally left unblank.
    3. Re:A dream.. by Lotharjade · · Score: 1

      How about a publicly city owned coop that only owns maintains and constructs the wired infastructure for the wireless. They would build according to permits and own specification a complete fiber network connected to the internet. Then they lease use to the big internet companies to provide to you.

      So in the end you pay verizon/comcast or whoever and part of that bill goes through them to pay the city coop for use of the high speed (say fiber) lines. The big company only connects the last little distance and provides you with a proper modem. The big company handles all the billing.

      The result would be that a high speed internet backbone would be built in an area the big companies aren't willing to create expenditure for. Then the big companines are in a different position from a business analysis point of view. It is a boon to them where they have to do little to move into a rural area or smaller town and recieve profit. Also the maintenance of the backbone is in local hands and public controlled instead of a big company that can have shifting priorities on maintenance. In the end if played right this is win/win/win for everybody. I think this is highly possible.

      --
      Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
    4. Re:A dream.. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Don't know about other states but in North Carolina there are several cities that run their own electrical companies. They've even got a non-profit trade organization called ElectriCities. I expect that they send power bills separate from property tax bills though.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  5. Permits for what? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    What permits are they missing? The 2.4 GHz band is unregulated spectrum, and only the FCC has the authority to regulate radio spectrum.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Permits for what? by xted · · Score: 2, Informative

      the AP's have to physically be located somewhere, and use electricity somebody is paying for. They'll need permits for all of this.

    2. Re:Permits for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the tempe.gov site posted below:
      "In return for MobilePro's agreement to build and operate a Municipal network for the City's use, Tempe agrees to grant limited use of the City street light infrastructure and existing fiber backhaul locations for Mobile Pro to deploy its network."

      From TFA:
      "Dave Heck, deputy manager of information technology for Tempe, said MobilePro should be treated like other communications firms that do not need a license to build wireless systems because they plan to use a subcontractor to install the network.

      But after reviewing city records, the chief of licensing officer for the registrar's office asked for an investigator to be assigned, saying companies that build onto existing infrastructure must register with the state.

      To construct the wireless network, MobilePro plans to add infrastructure - such as antennas - to city-owned stoplights and street lamps."

    3. Re:Permits for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BRING BACK MY AUTOPR0N!!!!

  6. More info for those interested.. by guyfromindia · · Score: 4, Informative
  7. Wireless town by GreatRedShark · · Score: 3, Funny

    The town near my aunt's cottage went totally wireless when some drunk driver knocked over the pole that connected them to everything else...
    I didn't rtfa though, so maybe this isn't the same thing...

    1. Re:Wireless town by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

      The town near my aunt's cottage went totally wireless when some drunk driver knocked over the pole that connected them to everything else...

      I think it's safe to assume that when wires get destroyed, a town is wireless. So what did they do for power? Get that wireless?

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    2. Re:Wireless town by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "The town near my aunt's cottage went totally wireless when some drunk driver knocked over the pole that connected them to everything else...
      I didn't rtfa though..."


      Hey, at least he's got an excuse. I usually just blame slashdotting.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Wireless town by GermanShorthair · · Score: 0

      Could be the same drunk but I didn't hear anything in the news.

      --
      Karma: Bad
  8. Excellent by Albinofrenchy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excellent, now I can take down the protective siding around my house, what with these intrusive waves going away.

    --
    "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
  9. Why expect the city foot the bill? by maynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, OK if a community votes on a measure and the town sets up community funded wireless. But why would the original submission author hope for a private business to fail in the expectation that a town government would step up and fill their shoes? I mean, not only does it seem an unlikely outcome, but it's also mean spirited. Hey, if a business sets up something you want at a reasonable price - what's wrong with that? Would you prefer the government run this? \*cough!\* I call myself a liberal, but frankly, I'd rather see private industry handle this sort of thing. JMO. --M

    1. Re:Why expect the city foot the bill? by sevinkey · · Score: 1

      I work in Tempe and will be buy a house there next month, and I'm more than happy to pay for such a service.

      Now I can go hang out at a bar on Mill AND be an anti-social websurfer at the same time!

      Seriously though, weren't they planning on charging a pretty low price? Like $25/mo?

    2. Re:Why expect the city foot the bill? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "Hey, if a business sets up something you want at a reasonable price - what's wrong with that? Would you prefer the government run this?"

      Strawman: Hi everybody!

      Everybody: Hi, Strawman!!

      Sorry to dump on you like that, but you seem to have missed the part in the comment where the poster says:

      "As a resident of downtown Tempe, I hope the rollout isn't successful, as I would much prefer to see a more community-based effort, such as in Seattle, Austin, and New York City."

      [Links omitted from the quotation. Feel free to scroll back up the page if you're not sure what the submitter means by 'community-based'.]

      This isn't even a case of RTFA, it's more like 'RTFSecond half of the sentence'. Please, there's no need to invent an answer on the submitter's behalf.

      Personally, I can sympathise with his sentiments. Community-driven wireless seems to be the most successful model available. Costs are spread thin enough that noone has to bear too much of the burden. Tech support is, from what I've seen, exceptional too. You see, it's in everybody's interests to ensure network-wide security and robustness.

      I'm not saying this as an uninformed observer, by the way. I've been actively lurking (heh, if such a thing is possible) on a number of community wireless lists, because I'm planning to set one up where I live.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    3. Re:Why expect the city foot the bill? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      "I call myself a liberal, but frankly, I'd rather see private industry handle this sort of thing."

      Um, when was the last time you looked up the word liberal? Liberalism is about freedom.

      --
      Deleted
  10. But Who Pays for it? by JediCk · · Score: 1

    I've seen a lot of talk about 'breaking the stranglehold' of the ISPs etc - but when you offer 'free' WiFi, don't you still have to connect to the internet using an ISP. No wonder the ISPs are fighting this - tehy're going to see a huge spike in their bandwidth usage if every user suddenly starts opening up his/her connection as part of a 'community' net.

    1. Re:But Who Pays for it? by zerbot · · Score: 1

      I agree. I checked out the Seattle link as I live there, and it's basically "open your wifi network so everybody else can have free access."

      Say what?

  11. Local vs. State by Xeroc · · Score: 3, Informative

    The actual issue seems to be that the company (MobilePro Corp.) isn't registered with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. The city officals, however, say the company doesn't need a general contractors license, so they are planning to continue with the construction.

    This seems to be Local vs. State issue and while the State doesn't seem to be able to directly cancel the project, they can boot the company out of the state, so they'd need a new company to add to the infrastructure as they are planning to build the Wi-Fi.

    --
    "Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write it should be hard to understand."
  12. cost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    FTA:
    "City officials said they don't know how much it would cost to install the broadband network."
    Then why the heck are they doing it if they don't know how much it's going to cost?
    1. Re:cost... by GermanShorthair · · Score: 0

      OH! Um! Mr. Kotter!! I don't know.

      --
      Karma: Bad
  13. Global Public hotspots by 10000000000000000000 · · Score: 1

    Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but in regards to public physical wireless internetworks, what keeps we private citizens from setting up a global wireless network?

    Seriously, I don't mean a megabit dealy-bob or anything. just a couple nice 10's of K global wireless hot spot for the masses?

    Don't we have the technology to broadcast great distances and without sophisticated (by todays standards) consumer-level equipment?

    I'll setup an repeater if it's pretty cheap to buy and assemble one ¦D

    (I imagine it would involve duct tape, a dissasembled cell-phone and some blinking LEDs!)

    1. Re:Global Public hotspots by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

      No one is stopping anyone. Well, officially.

      Downtown Tempe is managed by an ass-baggy organization, DTC. DTC is very pro-big biz and anti-mom & pop. Their track record confirms this. I wouldn't put it past DTC that if there were to be a community-based effort, the DTC would begin to levy fines against those downtown businesses who participated.

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    2. Re:Global Public hotspots by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Okay this is a great idea. Not really. The globe is BIG. And not long distances high speed wifi is not simple it requires at satellite to better than visual range.
      Then you have places like Canada, Austraila, Russia, and even large sections of the US are big and empty

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  14. community-based effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >...as I would much prefer to see a more community-based effort...

    Community? You communist!!

    There is no community, only business. And economy. And consumers.

  15. I don't understand people sometimes.... by sllim · · Score: 1, Troll

    Is this really how you want your tax dollars spent? I mean seriously. If this was in my town I would rather they refunded us the money they would have spent on the project then going forwarded with it.
    When will you people get it, capitalism, private industry always trumps government.
    Look at NASA. Now look at Burt Rutan. Now look at NASA again.

    Citywide wireless as a city run service?

    I hope you enjoy the crappy service you are gonna get. I hope you like the speed you are gonna get. Cause if the city can realize a profit from this it is a short penstroke away from making there monopoly the law. Once that happens you won't ever see upgrades again.

    Don't get me wrong. I don't like how certain companies are approaching governments regarding this stuff. They are trying to get a monopoly written in there favor. That is no better.

    I like the idea of competeing companies for my dollars. I just don't see a productive place for government run business in that.

    1. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by dangitman · · Score: 1
      When will you people get it, capitalism, private industry always trumps government.

      Would you care to elaborate? There are many things that the government does that private industry won't, or can't do.

      Look at NASA. Now look at Burt Rutan. Now look at NASA again.

      Yeah, so what? How is Burt Rutan vs. NASA relevant? The government (and industry) does a lot more than build space vehicles. How would Burt Rutan have been able to do what he did, if government did not provide a stable society and economy for him to perform his experiment in? Burt Rutan (or NASA) does not exist in a vaccuum.

      There are any number of irrelevant anecdotes that can be twisted to any ideology. Look at the tobacco industry's lies. Or Enron. Do they trump government? What about slave labor?

      Both governments and private industries have their flaws and their benefits. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by scheme · · Score: 2, Insightful
      When will you people get it, capitalism, private industry always trumps government. Look at NASA. Now look at Burt Rutan. Now look at NASA again.

      Sure, then take a look at Burt Rutan again and wait until he makes something that that goes beyond what NASA did with it's Mercury flights ~45 years ago. Rutan had a interesting design and did a lot but the fact remains that Spaceship One can't even compare to the Gemini flights much less the the Space Shuttle.

      I would rethink worshipping at the temple of capitialism. Studies have shown that nationalized health services can be run with a lower overhead and administrative costs than private healthcare services. There are other examples of pure capitialism being detrimental, e.g. monopolies.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    3. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by sllim · · Score: 1

      Burt Rutan has actually put a human being in space in the last year.
      NASA is so scared to launch there multi-billion dollar meal ticket that we will be lucky if it isn't another year before that thing goes in space.

    4. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by MustardMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I couldn't agree with you more. All rutan did was pay some people to build a sub-orbital space vehicle. NASA funds SCIENTIFIC research in a huge number of fields that greatly advance our understanding of the universe. The whole "NASA sucks" virgin-galactic worship thing really pisses me off. You're talking about one of the largest, most productive research organizations in the history of humankind, and comparing it to a guy who solved a minor engineering problem by drawing from existing technologies. I'm not saying NASA couldn't use some serious reorganization and better administration, but comparing the work of its many talented scientists to a company that built a glorified airplane is foolish, disrepectful, and incredibly short-sighted.

    5. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burt Rutan vs. NASA is a bad example of private industry trumping government.

      How about the, literally, *trillions* of dollars unaccounted for in US DoD budgets? If NASA performed anything even remotely resembling that kind of budgetary larceny, it would be strung up by the balls and bled to death. I would bet that a completely privatized army would have been more efficient or at least less criminal with that enormous sum of money.

      NASA does some amazing things with the dollars they are given. In many areas of space exploration, such as planetary satellites/rovers, space stations, high-optic telescopes, etc. they have exactly 0 competitors in private industry.

      And they have to go before Congress pretty much every year and justify their existence and beg for money. Plus now they are getting pretty bad leadership from on-high with this practically unfunded Mars boondoggle.

      As far as high-performance suborbital and low orbital aircraft, the private sector is probably superior these days. But these aren't really the kinds of projects that NASA concentrates on right now. And you'll notice as of late, they have really stayed out of this market to let the private sector flourish.

      Anyways, a lot of the private sector companies wouldn't exist without NASA blazing some trails.

      Government agencies are often much better at basic R&D than the private sector, because this type of activity tends to be not immediately profitable.

      Have you ever heard of the Internet, WWW, PET scans, radar, the Grid or transistors? (off the top of my head) These were all invented at government agencies, I think US ones.

      I think you could use a more balanced perspective.

      "Government = bad" compared to the private sector is pretty naive and flies in the face of history in a lot of ways for things like basic scientific R&D.

    6. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After seven years as a flight-test project engineer for the US Air Force [Burt Rutan]..."

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3746313.stm

      Do you think USAF is run by Walmart?

      This guy learned his superior "private industry" skills working for Uncle Sam.

      I wouldn't have modded "Troll" but -1 "incoherent" with maybe another strike for poor spelling and grammar, e.g. "there" for "their".

      Poster seems to actually believe what he writes unless imitating a 14 year-old who just got a lecture about business from Dad.

    7. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Burt Rutan has actually put a human being in space in the last year. NASA is so scared to launch there multi-billion dollar meal ticket that we will be lucky if it isn't another year before that thing goes in space.

      So what? How does that prove that private industry always trumps government? I could cherry-pick dozens of cases where the government has done a better job than private industry. But it doesn't prove anything.

      The original poster was choosing a highly specific, specialized case, and using that to try and show that private industry is always better than government. That's known as a strawman, and illogical reasoning.

      Furthermore, what was the benefit gained by putting someone in space by Burt Rutan? That has been done very many times. Not even considering the fact that Burt Rutan is hardly typical of "private industry" as a whole. He's more of an enthusiast.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    8. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by steve_bryan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Burt Rutan has actually put a human being in space
      But honestly, who cares? What do you think that has to do with NASA's mission? Manned space flight is a side show that has been maintained to entertain the masses who weren't entertained anyhow. It has almost nothing to doing space science, which is NASA's strength. I enjoy Star Trek and find it diverting occasionaly in a dramatic sense, but it is FANTASY. It is about as realistic as Lord of the Rings.

      When Burt Rutan does a successful robotic mission to Mars, give me a call. Or when he blasts a probe into a comet I'll take note of it. Maybe a fly by of Saturn's moons. Then there is the passing of Voyager (NASA's not Roddenberry's) into a new region of interstellar space. The list goes on for quite a while with nothing more to register on Rutan's side of the ledger. It is a shame you choose to expose him to such a comparison when I'm certain he would not be so foolish himself. I mean no disrespect for Mr Rutan as what he accomplished is admirable. But to compare NASA unfavorably to his effort requires a remarkable level of cluelessness.

    9. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Okay, first of all, if I never read the word "strawman" again, it will be too soon. Second of all, that term refers to a specific type of argument, and does not refer to "choosing a highly specific, specialized case, and using that to try and show that private industry is always better than government" it refers to choosing an argument that is weaker than the presented argument, and proving it wrong, in order to prove your own argument right in all cases. In a sense, you create a "straw man" and defeat it. Of course, with all the misusage, and over usage around here, your confusion is understandable. One thing is for certain, simply calling some one else's argument a straw-man does not prove it wrong. That, in itself is a kind of straw man argument.

      Furthermore your attempt to assert your intellectual authority is even less credible because you failed to notice that the person to whom you've responded was also the original poster. Not very observant of you.

      "I could cherry-pick dozens of cases where the government has done a better job than private industry"

      I'd like to see you try. Almost anything the government does now is not done by private industry. This isn't because the government does it better, necessary, but because the government is able to obtain funding for any project that has enough political capitol. I can't think of a single case where a government operation has proven more innovative or efficient than private industry. The only cases where a government solution could be considered "better" are the ones where private enterprise is not an option at all.

      It's probably safe to say that if Burt Rutan could get together enough funding, he could probably do anything NASA does, at significantly lower cost.

      The problem is many-fold. Pork, for one thing, prevents any government operation form being particularly efficient. Politicians see government projects as a way of providing welfare to their constituency, withought paying the political price of trying to do that outright.

      Culture is another problem, though that comes into play with any large institution. Management and bureaucracy costs balloon. Individual units waste money trying to secure funding for themselves. In the case of private industry, the lack of efficiency that results form excessive size causes companies to spin-off units or hold individual units accountable for their own self-sufficency. Unfortunately, with government this can not happen. The result is an ever ballooning government budget, and continually decreasing government efficiency to boot. Fortunately, many elected representatives, who have an understanding of neo-classical economic theory, recognize the problem, and try to cut existing government programs whenever possible. Of course, this can not really be done in a fair and balanced way, and the cost cutting does not necessary reflect the reality of the situation (important institutions are often cut, bloated institutions are often left in place).

      "Not even considering the fact that Burt Rutan is hardly typical of "private industry" as a whole. He's more of an enthusiast."

      That's just absurd. Burt Rutan runs a company called Scaled Composites, they develop aircraft, and sell rights to the technology and design. He is not an enthusiast, because he makes money running his own business (enthusiasts spend money on their hobby, they don't make money at their job). Calling him an enthusiast is almost an insult, and it is certainly a huge understatement. He's an entrepreneur if he is anything.

    10. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by sllim · · Score: 1

      I was modded troll because it is better that conflicting opinions be stifled then they see the light of day. It is up to the few to protect the masses from the evils of free speech.

      If you look look over my past postings (can you do that on Slasdot? I honestly don't know) you will see that I have my own mind on things. I like to think that I back up my opinions with at least reasonable arguments. That is for you to decide, not I.
      I often use sarcasm.

      But the way Slashdot works a comment at a 1 is automatically put to the bottom of the stack, safe from the eyes of those whose minds can be easily corrupted.

      Back to Burt Rutan. Yeah he learned stuff in the military. So why isn't he still there?
      Burt has a hell of a pedigree to himself. You know that time and time again NASA has called on Burt to design things for them - one of them being a replacement for the space shuttle.
      When the Space Shuttle went **BOOOOM** some time ago people starting screaming for a replacement. It is a design of the '70's after all.
      You know that NASA has killed a project that was actually in the stage of construction of a prototype to replace the shuttle? Rutan designed it.
      NASA killed it cause they couldn't afford both it and the Space Station.
      We are back to design and we actually have a half built prototype in moth balls!
      I am sure Rutan has a bunch of reasons for going private with his company. But he is a man that builds things that fly's. He must have been frustrated with his projects that got caught up in beurocratic red tape.

      And that is the thing, right there!
      Private industry DOES trump government.
      NASA used to be something admirable, something great, something that we could all look up to.
      Now we are talking about a timeline for us to go to the moon that is longer then the original Apollo timeline!
      We already know we can go there!

      No Rutan's Spaceship One does not orbit. But it does quite a bit more then the Mercury capsule did. It is reuseable for one. Lands on an airstrip for another. Is safety concious for a third. Just Google 'Spaceship One' and look hard at it. It is elegant, safe, simple. It is everything that NASA is not.
      No it can't replace the shuttle yet - but then again at no point in its design was it intended to.

      -------------

      Look, I don't care how the damned town is funding this project. It isn't my town, not in my state so I say good luck to them. I hope I am wrong, I don't wish bad things on good people.

      What you are going to create is a monopoly on a service that has no need to be a monopoly.
      If I can turn on my machine and recieve free wi-fi then why would a company invest money to start a competing business there?
      They certainly can't compete on price.

      Thing is, standards change, hell we are talking Wi-Fi here! It seems like every 3 weeks I am reading about a new standard out there.
      If there is no monopoly and competing business then there is the avenue for me to get better service and upgrades to my current service.

      No such thing as a free meal. One way or another you are gonna get screwed.

      I would say 'I told ya so' when it happens, but I have been efectively silenced by those that know better then me.

      Free speech is for the foolish.

    11. Re:I don't understand people sometimes.... by sllim · · Score: 1

      '"Not even considering the fact that Burt Rutan is hardly typical of "private industry" as a whole. He's more of an enthusiast."

      That's just absurd. Burt Rutan runs a company called Scaled Composites, they develop aircraft, and sell rights to the technology and design. He is not an enthusiast, because he makes money running his own business (enthusiasts spend money on their hobby, they don't make money at their job). Calling him an enthusiast is almost an insult, and it is certainly a huge understatement. He's an entrepreneur if he is anything.'

      I just want to add something to what is being said here.
      Burt Rutan considers Spaceship One to be a business project. It has investors and these investors have been promised a return on there investment.
      Burt Rutan is already started to make good on that promise. He is selling the next phase of the 'Spaceship One' concept (I think it is called Spaceship Two) to Virgian Airways.

      When Burt Rutan entered the X-Prize competition he made his intentions clear that this was a business venture for him. He was gonna move forward with or without winning the X-Prize.

  16. Tempe Wireless by matmcfad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I currently live in Tempe, Arizona attending the University of Advancing Technology. This seems like a poorly planned project. Already in downtown Tempe stores have free WAP's opened up, ASU has free Wireless all over campus, note its huge 57,000 students, and even at my college, www.uat.edu, The University of Advancing Technology, we offer free wireless access to the community. No one is going to pitch in the money to pay for this service, most consumers have access to the internet via cox cable internet for $40 a month and businesses. There is no incentive to switch over. Our college, sponsered a wardriving project in which we found a lot of information about Tempe and the valley. The project was to map out the whole Phoenix valley WAPS. "The wardriving project is already 1/3 complete, after starting this fall. That was done with a crew of Al Kelly's war rivers who volunteered to set up the laptops (provided by UAT), configure the GPS and wardriving kits. "For the upcoming semester, students will go in wardriving crews to canvas the Phoenix valley and search out wireless networks. The data will be collected and then analyzed against demographic information such as age, income and commercial characteristics of the scanned areas. Wardriving crews have already gone on reconnaissance trips, and in a nearby seven-mile square mile area, found more than 1,000 access points." From my understanding I am sure more people will post from my school but they have found like over 200,000 non secured access points. I bet a lot of people are asking why do we need to pay $40 for city wide wireless since its already being offered free (legally that is)? Thats a good question.

    1. Re:Tempe Wireless by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      IANAS, but I am tempted to refactor the parent.
      Unfortunately, I don't know if it was published under a license that would allow modification and republication.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    2. Re:Tempe Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you got paid for your uat plug, cause you sure arent going to get paid graduating with a degree in 'Technology' from uat.

      HAHA

    3. Re:Tempe Wireless by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect the free services to remain free for long. Maybe it will be, maybe not.

    4. Re:Tempe Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I hope you got paid for your uat plug, cause you sure arent going to get paid graduating with a degree in 'Technology' from uat."

      HAHAHAH! PWNED!@

      seriously, what do you work for the school or something, christ, you are a whore. way to waste your time at that notoriously overpriced school.

  17. No, I misunderstood by maynard · · Score: 1

    The contractor hired to build out the Tempe citywide wireless service is being stopped by the state because they lack the proper permits to build out on public infrastructure (like traffic lights, etc). So the state is stopping the city from installing the public service by halting the contractor (whether they're doing this for private interests or for regulatory reasons was unclear from the article). Duh. I should have read it before replying to the author's submission. --M

    1. Re:No, I misunderstood by sevinkey · · Score: 1

      :) I'm sure we all post first and RTFA later on a regular basis

  18. As an Austin Resident by quark101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I personally don't understand what the author is talking about. Yes, there is some development by the community (both public and private) of the wireless network in the city, but it is very limited. Currently, we have some cafes, various public buildings, and a scattering of parks that have free access.

    Overall though, I wouldn't put the percentage at higher then _maybe_ 2% of the city as being truly wireless. And I'm not talking about putting wireless way out in the fringe neighborhoods and suburbs, I'm talking about right smack in the middle of down town, and in various big commercial centers, like the malls.

    But that being said, it is nice to know that there is an effort to do this, even if the effects are negligible at best right now. After all, progress always starts off slow, and it may end up increasing dramatically in the next months/years.

  19. Bitterness & hopes of failure by dangitman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As a resident of downtown Tempe, I hope the rollout isn't successful, as I would much prefer to see a more community-based effort, such as in Seattle, Austin, and New York City."

    You hope that something that could be useful to many people will fail, just because you like something else? You want to see money wasted, just to feel superior?

    Why does this rollout succeeding, stop you from contributing to community efforts? Maybe you should make an effort to do better yourself, with your community ideas, rather than simply hoping that others fail. What an attitude!

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Bitterness & hopes of failure by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      as a matter of fact, i have met and discussed the idea of a community based effort with a handful of people

      but having to deal with DTC is not particularly easy. DTC is not a particularly pleasant organization. retribution is definitely within their capabilities. the city gov't is much the same (imo)

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    2. Re:Bitterness & hopes of failure by noidentity · · Score: 1

      You hope that something that could be useful to many people will fail, just because you like something else? You want to see money wasted, just to feel superior?

      Why does this rollout succeeding, stop you from contributing to community efforts? Maybe you should make an effort to do better yourself, with your community ideas, rather than simply hoping that others fail. What an attitude!


      Your attitude? Re-read what was written; the poster hopes that the commercial rollout isn't successful so that there's a better opportunity for a community-based effort. If the commercial rollout is successful, it would be harder to get a community-based effort together because it wouldn't make as much as a difference to as many people (no wifi->wifi versus commercial wifi->community wifi).

    3. Re:Bitterness & hopes of failure by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, having to compete is harder than having a monopoly.

    4. Re:Bitterness & hopes of failure by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Obviously you don't understand how government works.

      If the government is offering million dollar contracts to provide a service, and politicians are staking their reputation on this spending (and most likely getting kickbacks), how receptive do you think those very powerful people are going to be to a group of people rolling out their own wireless network with better service at a fraction of the cost?

      Unless the city rollout fails, if you try to run your community wireless network, you are going to have the city fighting you tooth and nail every step of the way. And even if they can't stop the community network, you are going to find your property has recently been reassesed for taxes as twice the market value, you are going to find city inspectors have cited your home, your place of buisness, for a bunch of civil infractions. There will be retaliation.

      Once the government decides to take something over, unless it completly fails, you are stuck with it being a monopoly pretty much permanently and forever.

  20. The dot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dot.

    Yeah.

    "The dot".

  21. I hope the rollout isn't successful by harris+s+newman · · Score: 1

    You say: "I hope the rollout isn't successful as I would much prefer to see a more community-based effort, such as in Seattle, Austin, and New York City." I'm confused. Isn't the city really just a reflection of a community? If not, what is it?

  22. No tax dollars were spent by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

    RTFA... Tempe traded the ability of the wireless company to utilize the 4.7 GHZ band in exchange for them providing wifi service to the entire city. No money flows from Tempe to the wireless company, at any level, police, fire, or for any other municipal services. In addition, all Tempe and ASU related sites will be availiable free of charge.

    The rest will be a subscription service.

    I generally oppose government running services, but I think this is a good way of doing it. A private company is given a 4 year monopoly in exchange for ponying up to build the infrastructure to do it.

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  23. since when has phone been a city utility? by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    these are private monopolies forcing their services on cities.

    if the city administered these programs, they would be free. let me repeat that, they would be free.

    since republicans started forcing cities to buy services from companies, rather than provide the service themselves, the price has increased.

    look at property taxes. they used to include garbage pickup service. now my city requires pre-paid stickers for each bag of garbage to be picked up.

    as for internet wireless, the cost is free right now. let me repeat that, free. if a city office needs the internet, they can put the wireless router on so anyone can use it. most cities have multiple city buildings with internet access. in my city, we have the police department on one side, the fire department on the other, the city administraion buildings elsewhere. there is a library in the middle, and a county health building. if all these offices opened up their wi-fi, everyone in my city would be no more than a 10 minute stroll to an access point.

    it is the same thing with phones. why do we pay so much money for something that should cost nothing? all the phone lines are established. it does not cost very much to maintain them. where does the money go? how many millions of dollars go to executives? how many millions of dollars go to less than a dozen people?

    the anwser is for the people to take control of their city. buisnesses have infultrated city government, and there are more lies than the 2am infomercial promising you wealth through real estate.

    i think everyone with over 1 million dollars is a traitor, they stole it from employees. they should all be hanged. i am rooting for the terrorists. they are targeting the centers of power, and i know that will never be me or my kind. we're only good for minimum wage.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:since when has phone been a city utility? by aywwts4 · · Score: 1

      if the city administered these programs, they would be free. let me repeat that, they would be free.

      Yeah, free, free as in ambiguous tax surcharges and property tax riders with funny sounding acronyms.

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    2. Re:since when has phone been a city utility? by Byrneseyeview · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference between 'free' and 'paid for by someone besides the user' -- and that difference keeps the cost of something from rationing the use, thus leading to overuse or abuse of a network and negative consequences for those who do pay.

  24. I'd rather see everything... by Che+Guevarra · · Score: 1

    I hope the rollout isn't successful, as I would much prefer to see a more community-based effort

    I would personally prefer to see all the potential rollout models and have a choice as a consumer.

  25. Eff that noise by GermanShorthair · · Score: 0

    Tempe has been a wannabe ultra-progressive boondoggle of a town since at LEAST the Cardinal stadium clusterfuck. That's as far back as I can confirm the Peoples Republik of Tempe went totally experimental. Before that I wasn't paying attention. They could try to be the first city with municipal WiFi, but there's gotta be more important shit to worry about before paying someone a salary to figure out municipal WiFi. And that person's subsequent Tiger Team. Anyway, Tempe's gummint leaders appear to have zero resume', all sensation or something.

    --
    Karma: Bad
  26. Thanks for the introduction! by maynard · · Score: 1

    Oh, and hello Mr. Strawman, nice meeting you too. *cough!* Yeah, I realized this. --M

  27. When did it become... by PunkXRock · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "the dot"? That's not even a good nickname, it's a full 5 characters (counting the space) longer than "/.".

  28. Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems there is alot of confusion here.

    The difference between NY and Tempe is that in Tempe wireless is going to be run by a private company, so the city population does not pay for it (this is good, why should I pay for the city to have wireless internet?).

    If people want to, they can sign up for the citywide plan at a decent price (I don't know the exact amount, but it was around $20-30).

    The way NY and others run it is they essentially charge the whole population (via taxes) for a commodity that few people use.

    I prefer the Tempe method, if it is ever put together.

  29. Commerical == Choice by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 1

    > As a resident of downtown Tempe, I hope the
    > rollout isn't successful, as I would much prefer
    > to see a more community-based effort, such as in
    > Seattle, Austin, and New York City.

    What do you do if the community-based effort turns out to be awful? there's nothing special about being community-based which means they're going to offer a brilliant service; they're more likely than commerical companies, in some respects, but less likely in others, to fail.

    If it's commerical, there's going to be competition, and you can change provider.

    --
    Toby

  30. Tempe resident.... by antoy · · Score: 1

    Hey, does anyone know if is this the 'asu_tempe' network we're talking about? It sounds like a different thing.

    asu_tempe works fine for downtown cafes (Mill Ave.) but that's about it. There's also a number of other networks there, but nothing on my part of town.

  31. In Europe, the regulations make it difficult by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Specifically the 100mW EIRP limit makes setting up a large network with good coverage rather problematical. Range is very limited compared to the US. They are not technical limitations of the hardware that is available.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:In Europe, the regulations make it difficult by petecarlson · · Score: 1

      I think thats 800mW EIRP for an omni and 1W for a point to point link.

      CP

  32. Downtown Tempe? by reallocate · · Score: 1

    >>downtown Tempe...

    Where's that?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Downtown Tempe? by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of Phoenix, AZ? (its the fifth largest city in the US)
      Tempe is the college town bordering Phoenix.
      Its land locked by other larger cities, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Chandler.

      Downtown tempe is pretty much Mill Avenue. Nice place for most of the year, a little uncomfortable during the daytime in the summer.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    2. Re:Downtown Tempe? by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know Phoenix. Used to live there. Might again, in the future. Nice city. So are the others you named.

      I know Tempe, too. I just can't recall it having anything anyone from back East would recognize as a downtown, Mill Avenue notwithstanding.

      But, I was being facetious. A little joke, you know.

      Is it below 100 today? Worst I ever saw it was 118 at Sky Harbor.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  33. You're implying science is the primary motivation by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    It isn't and it never has been. New frontiers have always, always been driven by the desire for exploration backed by the promise of commerce.

    I have no problem with the government funding blue sky science, it basically wouldn't get done otherwise but NASA amalgamates the science with a government funded monopoly on the access to space.

    Rutan is doing more for space travel than NASA has ever done, and this actually has nothing to do with the technical contribution but is because of the social contribution, the liberalisation of access to space.

    --
    Deleted
  34. It depends on how you think of the wire by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    What about roads? Who is responsible for the roads where you live? Water, electricity, phone etc etc.

    How is a city run monopoly different from a privately run monopoly? Well, at least with the city run service you get to choose the people doing the running.

    The question I suppose is, is it possible or reasonable to have multiple suppliers of the physical infrastructure? Is it possible or reasonable to have multiple suppliers of services making use of that infrastructure?

    --
    Deleted
  35. No Major Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me a tree huggin' hippie freak, but I dislike the idea of city-wide wireless. It's another excuse for more harmful RF to be broadcast. Harmful? Sure - they won't be interested in health, only money. What's a little more transmitter output or a leaky infrastructure going to matter?

    A much better solution is having a fiber optic system run, capable of carrying voice, data, TV, whatever.

    Hopefully the wireless will be hacked and revealed as a system with Windows-like swiss cheese security, and will be deprecated for hardwires.

    Yeah, I'll be -5 trolled for this, but I don't care. Fsck wireless.

  36. This post suffers from... by missing000 · · Score: 1

    a common misconception about government.
    The government is a collection of resources that work on the behalf of you and I. We pay taxes so that all of us can lead better lives

    If you think about it, the system works incredibly well, despite what the so-called conservatives will tell you.

    The government provides you with a lot of benefits for your small contribution. Let's say that you pay $20,000 a year in taxes. That sounds like a lot of money, but it pays for a lot of things you need.

    Things like roads, schools, parks, water, health care, space exploration, and even the internet itself. It's simply amazing that we get so much for that small contribution. Could you pay for any of that yourself? Imagine trying just to pay for just one of those things. Private industry could not, and would not fill the bill for any of these items.

    That said, we certainly could do better. We spend two thirds of our tax dollars on militarization, something that's clearly excessive. No country is close to our technological level, yet we insist on making the ability to kill people the focus of our expenditures.

    Let's imagine that we refocused that money. We could solve the healthcare equation, provide college education for free to everyone, pay service industry workers twice what they make now, and still have lots left over. This is not a radical idea.
    Others have done this; Switzerland may be the best example. They have never had a standing army. They are also the longest lived representative government.

    1. Re:This post suffers from... by natedubbya · · Score: 1
      hey have never had a standing army.

      That's because other countries have generously paid for the armies to protect them. Canada is another excellent example of a country taking advantage of other's. Their government treats our military commanders like royalty when they visit.

    2. Re:This post suffers from... by maynard · · Score: 1

      Well, so be pedantic, the "post" suffers from no misconception at all - being a collection of words. You might argue that I suffer from a misconception on the role of government, but that's a different issue.

      I happen to support many government run services. I find that government tends to perform better service at the local and state level, which is not too surprising given that the federal government tends to set too many standards which are often not applicable nationally. Basic infrastructure is a fine use of government money. I'll gladly pay taxes for roads and bridges. Same for public education, law enforcement, and even national health care.

      But what role does government have in providing wireless internet service? By this logic, shouldn't government also pay for telephone service? How about cable TV? Or automobile manufacturing? In a combined free market democratic republic, one must set a demark between government and the private sector. IMO that demark should exist between critical social services and the whims of private citizens. I would argue that wireless internet just doesn't fit the the standard for a critical social service, and is more a whim of various private citizens. As such, it's better served by private industry. JMO --M

  37. Re:You're implying science is the primary motivati by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
    New frontiers have always, always been driven by the desire for exploration backed by the promise of commerce.

    New frontiers have always been driven by the desire of killing other people more efficiently and from longer distance. A lot of hightech stuff came from military research.

    Then the private business comes and parasites on taxpayer-funded research once its fruit gets declassified, rediscovered elsewhere, or leaked by eg. espionage.