Slashdot Mirror
When Pigs Wifi
ratell writes "The New York Times has an editorial entitled When Pigs Wi-fi. It describes a 600 square mile free wi-fi network in Hermiston Oregon, and it argues that wi-fi should be a utility." From the article: "Mr. Puzey, who says wireless broadband is central to the port's operations, argues persuasively that broadband is just the next step in expanding the national infrastructure, comparable to the transcontinental railroad, the national highway system and rural electrification. Indeed, we need to envision broadband Internet access as just another utility, like electricity or water. Often the best way to provide that will be to blanket a region with Wi-Fi coverage to create wireless computer networks, rather than running D.S.L., cable or fiber-optic lines to every home."
Why should there be mass public investment in WiFi technology that will be replaced within a few years?
Beware the action groups! They'll be blaming wifi for all sorts of ailments!
Because I should would rather have a wireless connection in my home subject to interference as opposed to a FIOS line....
It only becomes "vital to the public", when so much of the public has it they can no longer make much money off it.
When everyone has wifi or at least broadband it'll get pushed over to "it's vital", then they'll start slapping it in taxs and the country/state/government will start leeching the money off it instead of companies (Although they're pretty much the same these days).
I like muppets.
This would be a fine idea if there were not millions of people indoctrinated into "health" fads who are afraid of any sort of radio transmission. I am refering to the sort of people who buy this. http://waveshield.com/
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Morons telling other morons their moronic ideas. And Slashdot grabs hold of the "story"!!!
If wi-fi really does become a universal utility then:
-don't most cell phone carriers become irrelevant as calls can be carried on wi-fi phones of some sort?
-can the provider (the US Govt) modify and control content routed through these systems?
-what happens to all those companies now offering pay-for wi-fi services? Do they simply throw up their hands and let it happen?
Don't get me wrong. I would love this. I'm on 56K dial-up because it costs me very little money and I would rather pay for things like food and clothing for my children.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
I say that Mr. Puzey should be put in charge of the FCC.
I saw this headline and thought I was gonna be reading an article about wifi in police cars in order to communicate or something, oh well.
I can't even get wifi to work across my house.
I'd have to say that the comment that NYC should be ashamed that it hasn't beaten Morrow and Umatilla counties in oregon to the WiFi punch is ridiculous. NYC has a much higher population density and thus more users and problems like inconvenient buildings. As a result a wifi deployment would presumably be more expensive and more inconvenient.
Besides this sort of dichotomy has shown up all over the world. Areas that have just recently opened up to modern technology, Afghanistan, rural China, have totally skipped the wired world, because of the sorts of infrastructure you have to have in place in order to make them work. Going wireless makes sense for rural areas, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they are different from the old players in technological infrastructure.
There are lives at stake here!
I'm all for this happening - and it has to happen if the U.S. wants to stay competitive with the rest of the world. However, I foresee a large upswing in the popularity of packet sniffers and more opportunities for fraud. Cities that want to set these networks up are going to have to do some serious thinking about security.
Hasn't this same thing been covered in the Lowes case etc? Or is this article headline referring to the police actually using wifi for their department? I think that's been covered anyway.
Disclaimer: I couldn't RTF from my PDA.
I hate the idea of "utilities." nJohn Stossel showed that public unionized utilities were more costly, less efficient, and offered zero choice. Sell them to private competing companies and those issues turn around.
Any regulation on networks is bad. "Freeing information" only means "information provided by the free market." More information providers competing for your DOLLARS means better products/services/speeds.
Keep the public interest/need out of it.
this is perfect.
we can now fight terrorism better than ever.
whenever you try to go to a p2p site or the anarchist cookbook, a local officer will be immidiately dispatched to your house. Let us tie police records and social security numbers to mac addresses.
yet another way to erode our privacy.
I have enough trouble getting a good signal in my own house from my own router. If they were to sell the wifi access as a utility, how would they go about ensuring that all areas of the house are covered by good signal?
Perhaps they could rent a repeater to each house, but by that point I would expect severely limited speeds.
Why not just say that basic Internet service should be considered a public utility? I would much rather have regular low-cost (less than $10/mo) dail-up, or even slow DSL, than expensive broadband service.
Its generally accepted that a dwelling have "public" electrical service, but there's no mandate that everyone must have 250 amp service to the house.
If we really want most people to use the Internet as they do power, water, and even highway systems, then shouldn't we start by making the most basic services available to the most people at the lowest price?
I really don't think that wifi on this scale is a priority.
I would much rather see the money go into improving and expanding roadways. With the population growth in the US, the traffic is only going to get more congested than it already is now
The broadband providers are already putting a stop to it. They have the money to grease the politicians and they already did it in Philadelphia: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1735342,00.as p
liberals who want the government to force us don't share our internet conection because mmm...god...yeah... says that it should be a utility
You know, I was just thinking, I haven't seen enough articles about municipal wi-fi on slashdot. This is incredible.
Have people learned nothing from the matrix? The only thing worth a damn when you really need it is a LAND LINE.
That part at least was non-fiction. I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a cellphone because I can't. They get cut off, distorted, delayed, or just can't make the call at all.
Phones have joined the world of email - now you have to leave voicemail which may not work, send email because you never know if that works, then just drag your butt to their office to ask if they got one of the above. So you may as well just skip the phone and emails.
Welcome to the future, nothing works.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I still think making computers a utility and not a luxury should come first. What good is broadband if you can't access a computer?
The public as a whole does not need access to barnyardporn.com (insert overrated +5 funny reply to that here) and everything on the 'net. I s'pose i'd support some sort of "basic wi-fi" system where everyone is entitled at least to the government webpages, local hospital directions, local sex offender listings, etc. But do I think that Slashdot is a Right and not a privledge? Absolutely not...
-don't most cell phone carriers become irrelevant as calls can be carried on wi-fi phones of some sort?
A. Not at all. First, wifi will have a hard time establishing the coverage area that cellular technology already covers. Wifi has a typical node to Access Point range of 200 meters, on a good day with no obstructions. Cellular on the other hand offers a handheld to cell tower range of nearly 20 miles. As you can see, it would take hundreds or even thousands of WiFi access points to replace a single cellular tower.
-can the provider (the US Govt) modify and control content routed through these systems?
A. Of course the provider can do anything they want to control access or content, from a technical perspective. Legal policy is another issue but, there are no technical limitations to content control.
-what happens to all those companies now offering pay-for wi-fi services? Do they simply throw up their hands and let it happen?
A. If someone were indeed stupid enough to provide free WiFi access fro the masses, then the providers you mention would be forced out of the market. Naturally, if this were a government action these providers would fight "city hall" as best they could but, if they lost their fight they would have to either sub contract the business from the government or find some other source of revenue.
The fact is that utility WiFi is a pipe dream of morons that haven't got a clue about the technical aspects of WiFi or the political and financial aspects of running a telecommunications business. Those that are familiar with these very important aspects realize that turning a wireless infrastructure into a utility is highly unlikely, extremely expensive and technically infeasible for the WiFi spec. Something more akin to GSM would be required from a technical stand point.
The NYT editorial was written by a clueless moron.
The problem with trying to turn technologies like these into utilities is that:
(1) They are still young an evolving. Wi-fi is getting faster, working from greater distances, and getting better security with successive iterations. Commercial broadband providers are testing second-gen broadband technologies which are far faster than the first.
(2) A public utility is stagnant. To provide something like water or electricity ubiquitously they are often monopolies, heavily regulated, and on extremely small profit margins. Bureaucracy adds to this stagnation.
Combine these, and you see that turning something into a utility is the death of innovation.
Hermiston is in the north central section of Oregon right on the Columbia river. The largest close city is Pendleton in Oregon and the Tri-Cities in Washington to the north. It is a transport hub for rail, trucking, and river traffic.
Yawn...
Hermiston is also one of the world centers for weapons of mass destruction. And not just massive amounts of pig excrement either. It is a major storage center for large stockpiles of nerve gas chemical weapons. These weapons currently are in the process of being burned and destroyed. However every time Allah directs the faithful to attest to his merciful benevolence by blowing up a bus or day-care center the process of destroying this massive supply of deadly nerve gas stops for another review of safety procedures.
Just north of the chemical weapon storage facility is the Hanford Nuclear Development site where most of the plutonium that powers the 20000 Hydrogen bombs in the US arsenal was produced. Heaven knows what else is produced or done there.
If I were sitting in a cave by the campfire trying to decide where Allah will next demonstrate his mercy and benevolence by having his followers murder innocent children, tourists, and commuters, anywhere near Hermiston Oregon would be the one last place on earth that I would choose to demonstrate once again Allah's bountiful mercy and Islam's great wish for a loving and peaceful world.
"broadband Internet access as just another utility, like electricity or water. "
This would be a bad idea.
There is currently very rapid technological development in internet access, with multiple competing technologies, both mobile and stationary. (I'm on 24/mbit DSL right now, was on 512kbit not that long ago...)
For the government to plow huge sums into one one-size-fits all system of broadband provision would smother technological innovation in the field. If the goal is to increase broadband access, just give a tax deduction for broadband, or subsidize network construction across the board.
I love it that it is called wireless. I mean, when people say wireless, don't they mean radio? Most people I know don't call cars "horseless carrages". Wouldn't optical fiber be wireless as well? There is no wire in it. Just a curious observation.
Can one get a FiOS line out in the middle of rural America? NO?
Then that's not an answer, now is it. Please adopt a little less parochial view on things you might even understand what they're on about. You see, FiOS isn't offered everywhere (Hell, it's only in a dozen or so of Verizon's markets...) but you could have ubiquitous access with WiFi/WiMax if they'd just roll it out; and you could STILL have your FiOS.
Just because you don't have the same priorities shouldn't mean I should accept yours as more valid than other peoples...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Hermiston is a curious place to see a system like this... Or maybe not. Hanford and several other government facilities nearby employ 100's of educated intellectuals that would find the idea of WiFi exciting. As well, DSL and Cable offerings have not reached many of the nearby rural population. The thing to remember is that while many city dwellers can't imagine living in such a rural place they consider "backward" and "hick", many other city dwellers who have done well for themselves move to these places to seek soils in their ¾ million dollar ranch houses. And don't forget, Google bought a spread in Hood River, just a hop-skip-and-jump down the road.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Any regulation on networks is bad. "Freeing information" only means "information provided by the free market." More information providers competing for your DOLLARS means better products/services/speeds.
Exactly. They should the same with roads. What we need is to privatise all roads and highways so that transportation providers will have a level playing field without goverment competition and can compete based on the quality their products and services. Who needs speed limits, police patrols, motor vehicle laws or driver registration when a toll booth at every intersection will free everyone and solve their problems. I live in a nice area and I'm getting sick and tired of poor people clogging up the roads.
And those commie pinko countries like Canada or those in Europe that regularly give shit away like health care? They have it all wrong. What they need to do is to adopt our health care model where healthy competition can spur the development of superior products and services and at lower prices. The drug companies can't be wrong.
Keep the public interest/need out of it.
Indeed. The right of profit triumphs all else. I mean, that's what life's all about, right? Even simple-minded idiots like John Stossel know it says so right in the Constitution.
We pay for the interstate and local highways with taxes.
We pay for our water and electricity based on how much we use.
I don't think enough people are interested in paying for wireless networking in either manner to make it nationwide.
Pigs wifi seems like another artcle on that dope from florida who got caught using somebody elses wifi to surf pr0n. Posted by ZONK makes it 50/50.
And once the government owns the WiFi network, they will snoop on our privacy as much as they please.
No thanks, I'll pass.
I thought it was an experiment on using pigs as WAPs. I don't know anything about Oregon since I had never been there. I thought it would be a state with a lots of pigs roaming around on farms or something. ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
http://www.publicvpn.com/
Sniff this!
It would be a good motive for switching to IPV6. IPSEC should be the default for all Internet traffic. Who cares about link encryption if all of the packets are end-to-end encrypted.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
There's a story from Dvorak in the current issue of PC Magazine where the state of Pennsylvania enacted (and the Gov signed into law) House Bill 30:
<copypaste>
Philadelphia wanted to create a municipal Wi-Fi network in the form of a universal MAN (metropolitan area network). This would be like a utility, costing the public next to nothing while providing universal access. You'd be able to log on from anywhere. It would provide municipal news and broadband access to the Net for anyone with a computer and an 802.11 connection.
The telecom lobby got wind of this and had its stooges in the state legislature draft House Bill 30, which actually banned such municipal activity. The rationale for such a ban? You tell me.
This was softened slightly after some protests to a semi-ban, with Comcast and Verizon getting an opportunity (with potential subsidies) to build a MAN themselves within 14 months of any proposed municipal implementation. This means for anyone to implement a MAN with either Wi-Fi or WiMAX, they have essentially to go through Comcast and Verizon, who can stall the project as they see fit. There are ways around this, but the bill was written to make these corporations de facto gatekeepers on behalf of the state.
</copypaste>
And you know Comcast and|or Verizon aren't going to make such a MAN
(in addition to WiFi and|or WiMax, when will this happen to VOIP? If not in large scale, regionally? The corporations may not be able to swing big votes at the Federal level, but they sure can at the state level (as seen above) There is no way corporation$ are going to take these things sitting down while they watch their bread & butter service$ compete against low-cost competitor$. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to take off their rose-colored glasses).
Like all other good bits of infrastructure, government money must be used to build it, otherwise it will never get done. Once built, the government will privatize it, and the new private corporations will charge the people who paid for it in the first place (the taxpayers) through the nose to use it.
Wi-fi, or any "wireless" technology for that matter, would never become a public utility like water, sewer or electricity (at least before deregulation). The reason these are public utilities is that they provide a needed service that relies on a huge infrastructure that must be owned and maintained by one entity. Imagine if every company that wanted to provide electricity to your home maintained separate transmission and distribution systems. Wires would be everywhere. In addition, these businesses are low margin and have high capital costs. The capital cost per user just would not support competition. Just look at what deregulation has done for the electric utility business. No cash for infrastructure investments. Now, wireless broadband surely would become a valuable service in the vein of cell phone service. However, wi-fi ain't gonna do it, especially in less dense suburban or rural areas. The range needs to be on par with current cell phone technology range, assuming the per-installation costs are roughly the same. When a standard in this area emerges, look for cell service providers to pick it up with a similar business plan. They already have the antenna sites, which is a major chuck of the new installation costs for any wireless service.
Privatized roads is an excellent idea. As to why you beleive this would mean no speed limits, police patrols, vehicle laws and registration i can only wonder - A private road owner would certainly have an interest in all of these things. As for the toll booth at every corner -- they are there -- you are just too blind to realize it. In fact, with the current system you pay the toll whether you drive or not -- the toll is extracted (by force -- with the threat of jail time) by the federal government everytime you receive a paycheck.
Canada and Europe don't give away health care -- they steal health care from the providers and producers and pass it out to those in the public willing to deal in stolen goods.
I have some advice for you -- next time somebody you know becomes seriously ill, thank god for the drug companies and pray that the government has not crippled them so badly that they can no longer afford to research new cures.
You stupid twat! Why don't you learn a little bit about the technology that you are advocating, before you run your stupid freakin mouth.
IPv6 does NOT have IPSec on by default, it is simply built into the protocol instead of added on as with IPv4. IPv6 does not have ANY IPSec superiority over IPv4 + IPSec!
A WiFi utility would NOT be any kind of motive to switch to IPv6. Do us all a favor, tell us why YOU need IPv6 so that we can all have a good laugh.
Do you need more IP addresses?
Do you need IPSec?
Do you need to attach your toaster to the internet?
Or, do you need it because it is newer and you read in Wired that it was better?
Um, this isn't an editorial; it's an op-ed piece by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
I'm all for lying beneath a wifi blanket wherever I go (who the hell wouldn't be?), but if the system were left in the hands of the gov't, what would be their motivation to explore future upgrades? Being able to set up your web connection sans wires any/everywhere would be quite impressive, but I can really see future infrastructure upgrades being overlooked in favor of other, more boneheaded projects. I'm not being a corporate puppet, I just want to make sure that all the kiddies will be able to download 20 torrents simultaneously whilst watching streamed eps of the tellatubbies, and I just hope that the municipalities can accommodate.
I can't remember the last time I forgot anything.
Why are people complaining about the government entering the internet provider market when right now the US trails almost every other developed country in internet speeds and pricing? It seems extremly obvious that the current internet providers are failing at giving the public new and better and cheaper technology. And you guys are saying that the government wouldnt be able to stay on top of technology, would be too expensive, and blah blah blah. Well thats exactly what we have now, without any government interference. So what I want to know, is how could it get any worse? If the government enters, maybe they will fail at it and it will be costly and all, but it already is. Or maybe they will be able to do it just like they do water, power and all that other stuff. But no matter what, it should prompt the internet providers to actually lower their prices and improve their technology. I dont know if the other countries that have better internet than us have it because the government is involved or because their companies are just more innovative and smart than ours, but I dont see how having the government try to give us a free service can hurt in the long run.
-willkill
Would that be the same World Health Organization that is accepting at face value what China is saying about their outbreaks of pig flu and bird flu? Those guys? Connected to the same org that put sudan on the human rights council and offered such a swell alternative for getting oil out of iraq and food in?
Yep, most competent and least corrupt orgs ever! And there's no money under the table possible for producing reports in favor of some entrenched big businesses, is there?
Academics and bureaucrats are easily some of the most corruptible people out there, generally speaking, as both groups are 100% dependent on getting free money handed to them for their living. So when you get people who are BOTH bureaucrats and academics at the same time, take what they say with several handfuls of salt.
I saw an ad the other day for a bluetooth headset. Said it would let you go "truly wireless" with your mobile phone. Aren't cell phones already wireless? All it's doing is giving your arm a break...
Who needs speed limits, police patrols, motor vehicle laws or driver registration
Insurance companies would set guidelines in order for the insured to balance safety versus time savings. Public welfare protected by profits. Cops use speed limits as municipal income.
when a toll booth at every intersection will free everyone and solve their problems.
It won't happen. We pay huge for our roads. When the State of California privatized a major highway, it reduced traffic to nil, and people were happy to pay. Then they took it over publicly and it quickly failed.
What they need to do is to adopt our health care model where healthy competition can spur the development of superior products and services and at lower prices.
We had the best health care in the world until you the people enacted the HMO Act. This destroyed health care and caused great strife for the poor. Canada? 16 month waits for MRIs? No distinctive drug research? Higher hospital death rates from accidents? Go ahead.
The right of profit triumphs all else.
Profit always goes both ways. One party provides a product for a cash profit. The other party provides cash for a product profit. Government, on the other hand, steals cash from one party (tax) to give a favored party a gift (discrimination).
I've read YOUR M rx and Keynes. Before you attempt to debate me with rhetoric, read MY Mises and Rothbard.
You're wearing out the slashdot crowd's ability to cry foul in face of this constant harassment, over broadband and FCC DSL rulings. After all, they are all human beings, with a psychology, and any psyche can be broken. So now you have to resort to putting the cry foul slogans back into their mouths, because they've worn out coming up with it themselves? That's like injecting a horse with a mental agitator, after it's calm and lets you sit on its back. I guess, unlike with a horse, on slashdot the agitation, the counterarguments are what you seek.
Before you attempt to debate me with rhetoric, read MY Mises and Rothbard.
He's busy trying to keep up with the faxes from DNC headquarters.
Oh, but the hype of fiber optic cable is very low right now, so it can't be any good. And besides, all you have to do is get a few high school kids to mess around with Linksys routers and Pingles cans to get WIFI working. Fiber optic systems need to have trained professionals. Sorry, I forgot.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
There's a ton of infrastructure that wasn't built by the government, like the cell network, or the internet (yes, I know about ARPANET; the point is that virtually nothing we use today was built by the government), or even our food distribution systems - farmers, truck and train companies, wholesalers, supermarkets, etc. Besides, wifi has only been popular about five years; isn't it a little premature to declare that no one but the government can (or should) build out the infrastructure? If no one wants to build something, we should stop and ask ourselves why. People have an amazing way of making money off the strangest things, if it's possible, so if no one is, some circumspection might be called for. I agree with you about the privatization problem, but I think the answer to that is that people who are profiting from something should have had to risk their own money on it.
Besides, it's always dangerous for the government to decide what direction technology should go in - look at Japan, where the government pushed ISDN for a while, and MITI developed an early high-definition TV system, both of which turned out to be expensive flops. Some things are always going to be flops, but shouldn't people have to pay for flops on their own dime instead of making all of us risk our money?
Blanketing areas with wifi is a cheap and easy solution to a broadband infrastructure. Lets do things the hard way and blanket everywhere with underground fiber optic! Make the cables a little above spec, and later you could upgrade the hardware on either ends to increase speeds. After all, the cables only carry the light pulses, right?
Last Post!
Out of curiousity, which road was this?
I know some of the bridges in the Bay Area required toll booth payments.
And there maybe some in other states as well.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I read too many people saying that what the Libertarians are arguing is "corporate" or some other such nonsense.
Most Libertarians DO NOT like corporations. Corporations are a system devised by the government which has resulted in the employees of corporations not being RESPONSIBLE for crimes like fraud, theft, etc. This is the reason why they do bad things. The people who make these decisions are NOT responsible, just the corporation, which has very deep pockets to pay off the "punishment" which is a fine or some other financial restriction.
Saying that a Libertarian argument is "Pro Corporate" shows that you have absolutly no idea of what the argument is.
The reason we don't call cars "horseless carriages" any more is the same reason we call a tarpaulin a tarp and a personal computer a PC. It's easier to say.
Wireless used to mean radio back when the most common and obvious example of unwired communications (as opposed to a using a telephone line link) was a radio set.
Radios have been wireless so long that the idea of a radio set is no longer connected with wired communications of some sort, so "wireless" today is used in the context of "information services that don't require ethernet cabling," since everything that isn't wireless wi-fi is tethered to ethernet.
Since you probably couldn't tell by looking at a cable what the conduit material is, it is a bit retarded to suggest fiber cables are wireless, since the point of being wireless is being untethered, not being metal free.
Wireless headsets are wireless because there isn't a wire from the phone to the headset, and is wholly unrelated to the wirelessness of the phone.
California Highway 91's Express route was privately owned and very successful.
Now look at it de-privatized. Very sad.
....transcontinental railroad....
If I'm not mistaken, the trans-con was built with a "competition" somewhat like the X-Prize.
Perhaps you mean more like Amtrak? Now there's an example of a successful public utility!
We are tearing out all our 2.4 equipment cause we can't get a decent signal 500 ft from the tower using a 500mw amp and a 14dbi direction antenna.. there is so much noise and crap on the airwaves (thanks Linksys) that 2.4 wifi is useless as a replacement for DSL/cable. We are moving everything to the 5.3/5.8 spectrum.
I find it hard to believe, that they are covering 600miles of area with good signal, and well enough that you can travel 70miles/hr and still have it stream data.
-b
These suggestions usually come from and area of dense population that could be easily served by wireless service. Those of us in fly-over country know that there is a lot of area for which such coverage would be almost totally unused and which can be more economically served by a wire. We just returned from a trip which took us halfway across New Mexico and Western Oklahoma. For about 2/3 of the way there were maybe 5 other vehicles in view and that was counting the ones on blocks in back yards along the way. I am sure there were a few who would have liked internet access the entire way(I for one) but the cost of such convenience would be more than I would want to support from my own pocket or with tax dollars. When suggesting ideas of this sort for universal adoption, please consider the economic implications. kk
"-what happens to all those companies now offering pay-for wi-fi services? Do they simply throw up their hands and let it happen?"
Did you notice that the FCC just made DSL an information service rather than common-carrier service? Now your phone company will not have to let any other ISPs use their phone line to your house to deliver the internet to you. Earthlink and hundreds of other ISPs simply threw up their hands and let it happen, and I don't see how they are possibly going to stay in business.
Now WiFi is a different matter, and the parties who want to sell you internet access are going to be doing everything they can to influence lawmakers to stop municiple wifi. Which is why experiments like Portland's and Hermiston's are so vitally important. If they can prove to the voters that it works and it isn't expensive, it is going to be a lot more difficult for politicians to hold forth that it won't work and it is too expensive. Not impossible, but more difficult.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Utilities exist because by their nature they create a monopoly. Electricity needs power lines. Water needs water lines. The infrastructure itself dictates a monopoly.
Wireless doesn't have that property and therefore shouldn't be a utility. There is no way the government will be able to compete with the free market. In the end we will all pay more for the internet tax than we would for what the free market could bring.
Drug companies highly favor putting their research money towards temporary (always have to be repurchased) solutions to chronic maladies. Why would they cure something when they could instead be paid thousands of times for "treatment"?
Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
I do not think that the described results lie in the realm of possible with WiFi, much less probable. Most likely, they are expected results of the WiMax deployment in the far future. In particular, I think the 70MPH reception with WiFi is close to impossible without special antenna arrangements.
I can see the lawsuits now from crazy nuts, my son/daughter was online and learned about religion and now I have to use my local goverment for providing them religion by providing free wifi. CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE SEPARATE, so the state has to block all the religous sites so my kids won't get that information from the government run wifi. Watch, you'll see some crazy nut try to pull this shit!
I can't believe its not butter!
As to why you beleive this would mean no speed limits, police patrols, vehicle laws and registration i can only wonder
Because there's no public means of enforcement, obviously. Why should taxpayer paid police enforce limits on private roads, and why should taxpayer funded courts enforce citations?
As for the toll booth at every corner -- they are there -- you are just too blind to realize it. In fact, with the current system you pay the toll whether you drive or not -- the toll is extracted (by force -- with the threat of jail time) by the federal government everytime you receive a paycheck.
Okay, try changing those metaphorical toll booths into real ones, calculate what your time is worth, and see if you're still a self-centered skinflint.
Canada and Europe don't give away health care -- they steal health care from the providers and producers and pass it out to those in the public willing to deal in stolen goods.
If by "steal" you mean "pay for", then sure.
I have some advice for you -- next time somebody you know becomes seriously ill, thank god for the drug companies and pray that the government has not crippled them so badly that they can no longer afford to research new cures.
I have some better advice for you: go find someone who can't afford life saving medicine because drug companies have a God given right to $20 billion a year in profits, and then tell them how "lucky" they are.
Sorry for going OT, but what would happen if it did? And more importantly, is the plural "neutrinos" or "neutrinoes?"