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

A bit evil, really...

[Huge Pi Removal]

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...

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

You dummy ... Internet is the blue E. Email is the envelope.

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

http != the internet

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I'm sure this will be redundant as soon as I post it, but the HTTP is what enables web page browsing. The Internet is the entire network, hardware, software, and protocals.

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).

Consider the authors geek badge...

[msimm]

Revoked.

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.

Enhancing an already attractive street

[Lurks]

It seems to falls to me to say something other than the standard slashdot paranoid naysaying.

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.

Re:Free my big fat ass

[EnglishTim]

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.

In the UK our personal data is 'protected' by the Data Protection Act, which puts stiff limits on what can be done with our personal data. However, recently diabolical measures were bought in in the name of 'anti-terrorism' which defanged the act somewhat and hugely increased the amount to which government departments can share our data.

So yes, they probably can now share information with the police and other agencies about users, but it won't be some back-handed thing. They've been given that power explicitly by the government.

editors?

[jpardey]

Oh, editors. I have been reading slashdot too long... thought you meant EMACS or VI... didn't remember that there was another kind.