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?
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.
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
After reading your post, maybe we should put more money into the education system instead of wi-fi.
Seems like this child was left behind.
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.
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?
Awful idea. The cars/roads analogy is entirely appropriate here.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
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
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.
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.