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."
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
A regulated monopoly run as a for profit company? Why would you dream about that?
My other car is a Popemobile
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
> The "dot"?
The Department of Transportation.
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.