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

Re:internet-only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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).