Municipal Wi-Fi Networks in London, Alexandria
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."
Streenet networks are a bit evil - round each lamppost they have 3 APs: one to transmit back to the previous lamppost, one to receive from the next lamppost, and one to actually provide the wireless at that point. This means that the wireless channels near to a streetnet network are pretty much totally swamped, and you tend to get a lot of interference.
They're also a bit evil because Streetnet appears to be an offshoot of a project that was initially helped by Mobile Bristol (http://www.mobilebristol.co.uk/ who funded and encouraged them, but they've never publicly acknowledged their help.
Municipal wifi is no bad thing, of course, but sometimes it's much better when done by independent volunteers such as http://www.eastonwireless.net/ rather than private companies who woo the local technically-naive council...
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
No. You mean that it has a crappy, overrestrictive firewall that allows access only to the few ports required for HTTP access to web sites. Internet-only would simply suggest that it doesn't allow access to other networks, such as LAN's. Don't get the two mixed up.
I really wish people would stop putting in neutered, free "Internet" access. I use the BPL, and their system allows full access to anything on their LAN, but allows only ports 80 (HTTP), 443 (HTTPS), and 53 (SMB!) to the outside world. I asked, and they said the reason they restricted it was that a lot of people liked to come in and screw around with it. The answer to that would seem to be restricting access to the *local* network, and allowing full Internet access, not the other way around! It's a pain in the ass to be able to browse the web but not use IMAP, SSH, or anything other than what the dumb 90% of the population thinks is "teh intarweb".
Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist
Upper Street is a very nice place and it's packed with an unfeasibly large number bars and restaurants, much of which are spilling out onto the pavement (sidewalk for Americans) at this time of year.
I can think of no better place than to have wifi access for free. It makes Upper street quite an attractive weekend haunt for me now as well as being a damn near perfect location for informal business meetings. Hooray!
I think this is a genuinely good thing for the area and it's heartening to see a council give something back for our ever-soaring rates. Of course I do wonder if some of the businesses wont start getting a little annoyed by the wifi camper syndrome - Eg someone who takes up a table and chair and sits on a coffee for 2 hours.
I guess the bars and restaurants will have to find ways of dealing with that too.
Not so sure about London, but this would definitely come up in Alexandria. I can just hear the professionally outraged journalists on News at Eleven now...
Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
Might anyone here perhaps know how many different phone companies could likely compete within a particular zone of a WiMax-covered area? This question is technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) oriented. Major phone companies are trying to hog up the spectrum all for themselves, in various places worldwide. They say that letting in too many players would cause interference and ruin it for everybody. Verizon's probably the biggest culprit in the USA, from what I've been told. For more info. on WiMax, here are some sites: WiMax.com WiMaxxed.com Intel.com (Rosedale chip) Nokia.com (just teamed up with Intel yesterday)