Municipal Wi-Fi Networks in London, Alexandria

xfletch writes "An famous London Street is now coverered by a free municipal wireless hotspot. Upper street in Islington is now one long Hotspot. The local council has set up this municipal Wi-Fi which they call the Technology Mile using cool-looking lampost-mounted access points [picture] at 200 metre intervals along the street, and the whole area is covered by free wireless internet, allowing users to sit in any of the area's numerous cafes or parks and access the internet. The scheme seems to be an extension of the Streetnet project, and requires a free login, and gives an hour's access before requiring you to login again. It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider." (Read more below.)

xfletch continues: "British press are reporting some objections raised by comercial Wi-Fi vendors, but conclude that in contrast to the U.S., where bills have been proposed in a dozen states that would forbid cities to offer Wi-Fi services to citizens on the grounds that government should not compete with private enterprise, we are unlikely to see such fireworks in the UK. Apologies for the camera-phone quality photos -- I will take better ones next time I have my digital camera with me."

Not quite as large, but closer to home for many readers, brokencomputer writes "According to a Washington Post article, 'This week, Alexandria began providing free wireless Internet access in its historic center, the first local government to offer alfresco Web surfing at no charge. The system, which relies on broadcasting equipment atop City Hall, the Torpedo Factory and a couple of utility poles, is aimed at outdoor cafe patrons or people who prefer parks to workstations, city officials said.' Interestingly enough, the article states that Verizon, which is the dominant high speed internet provider in the area, is not objecting to the city's plan."

Comments

internet-only?

[RandyOo]

It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider."

Since when is internet==port 80 www? I understand that they only provide web access, and that's fine... But "internet-only" doesn't really mean anything!

Re:internet-only?

[Corbets]

Yeah, I figured there wasn't much chance I'd be the first person to point this out. :) Web != Internet.

Huh?

[^DA]

It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider.

Funny, I've always been under the impression that email is part of the internet...maybe I'm wrong

This is hilarious

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

It's an 'internet only' service, but you have to access your email through a www interface...

Sounds how much that PR guy knows about it.. pretty much the problem in general

Saves logging into consumers' networks

[Egregius]

A government subsidized network means no longer walking around the streets untill you find an unsecured network, just because you can't be arsed to spend the 5 minutes it takes to get through WEP.

So I get's it's some advancement.

Free my big fat ass

[Toby The Economist]

"...and the whole area is covered by free wireless internet"

Free? so the council isn't paying for it?

Oh - you mean the council *is* paying for it. So that means it's being paid for by tax.

So...let's get the right; the council has said "we're going to charge you money and provide WiFi and if you don't like what we offer, well that's just too bad - you can pay a second time for a commerical provider (if one dares to come along, given they know that to use their service you'll be paying twice)."

Oh...and it's a State run service. So it's not going to be particularly resistant to things like, say, intelligence service requests for private user information, because it's the State which provides most of the money which the council runs on. Such things aren't likely I'd say to be *overtly* used to influence behaviour in such cases, but you know as well as I do it has a significant influence and is most certainly a conflict of interest - where the people who might ask for information just happen to also be rather closely involved with the people who give you funding.

No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on. I'd like them to do that as little as possible, because, frankly, I think they don't do a very good job - people are never as diligent or efficient as spending *other* people's money as they are at spending their own.

--
Toby

Re:Free my big fat ass

[robdavy]

"No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on. I'd like them to do that as little as possible, because, frankly, I think they don't do a very good job - people are never as diligent or efficient as spending *other* people's money as they are at spending their own."

I don't know where you're from (I won't speculate), but in the UK, our Council's (local government) spends a lot of money on various community projects, that maybe effect a few hundred people, and are sometimes of questionable benefit, but they still happen, because they enhance the overall social landscape.

This is a perfectly fine thing to do. The project above maybe cost £50,000 (?) to do, which in the grand scheme is almost nothing.

If the local council had spent that money, say, renovating a lock on a canal way, would you be moaning? It would probably have cost more, and would effect a similiar number of people.
My town has a "Museum" (in the loosest of terms). Is it the best use of the council's money? Probably not, but in the grand scheme of their budget, it's a good thing.

My point is, local government spending a tiny (relatively) ammount of money on something that is not their "core" role is not wrong - it helps make things interesting. Just think of all the non-core things your local government has done recently (think events, renovations, etc).

Re:Free my big fat ass

[raju1kabir]

No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on.

You must have burst a blood vessel when you discovered the municipal water company bought new potted plants for their lobby without your permission.

This (free wifi in public spaces paid out of my taxes) is exactly the sort of thing I want the government doing more of. It costs me almost nothing and gets people out of their houses. It's genius policy.

So...let's get the right; the council has said "we're going to charge you money and provide WiFi and if you don't like what we offer, well that's just too bad - you can pay a second time for a commerical provider (if one dares to come along, given they know that to use their service you'll be paying twice)."

Twice schmice. Get real; this will cost me a penny a year. A competing commercial service will cost actual money.

Re:Free my big fat ass

[Anonymous Coward]

some countries political systems actually help their citizens
but thats something you wouldnt know much about

Monitoring

[big water]

Someone may have mentioned this already, but what is the council there doing to monitor what websites people see and what they do (such as filesharing, p0rn etc)? Britain doesn't have the best record on privacy.

Factual correction ...

[The_Quinn]

London Street is now coverered by a free municipal wireless hotspot

the first local government to offer alfresco Web surfing at no charge.

With respect to "free" stuff from the government:

Bear in mind that governments do not produce anything. They can only take from some people and give to others (Usually through taxation). NOTHING a goverment produces is "free"!

Re:1984

[acb]

Owning or using a SUV in a city as tightly packed as London *should* be an offence (though perhaps not a capital one). There is no reason to drive oversized, fuel-inefficient personal monster trucks in a city which has narrow streets and perfectly usable public transport. At the very least, those who choose to do so out of personal choice should pay some extra tax to offset the inconvenience and increased pollution they are imposing on the other people they share a city with.