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."
I say that Mr. Puzey should be put in charge of the FCC.
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
-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.
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).
The odds of a single neutrino impacting a single atom of your body is astronomically remote.
This issue, EM saturation, hasn't been addressed, and because of utility and profit, never will be.
But Heinlein was ahead of us all. "Waldo".
By the way, even if you do want to engage in this infantile (and as I demonstrated above, wrong) brainwashed idiocy about how your beloved liberal states subsidize the evil red states, you should take into account that it's not liberals in the blue states who pay all those excess taxes. If you do a little research -- you could start here, at a liberal place -- you'll see that by a wide margin upper class and upper-middle class Americans vote Republican, not Dem., that the middle class is divided, and that only poor people have majority support for the Dems. In other words, those wealthy New Yorkers and Californians and so on who pay taxes to subsidize Kansas farmers, they're overwhelmingly conservative.
Now, as I say, I think the whole thing is somewhat silly, and I myself am neither Rep. nor Dem., but if you'd done even the tiniest bit of research you'd see that you're totally off-base on any number of levels, and basically just being a complete ass.
Fuck it