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."
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.
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.
Well theres not much infrastructure involved in wifi. If its upgraded the client end and the access point end will have to be changed. But this is the same for wired networks too.
I still prefer wired networks because I am not pleased with the proliferation of electromagnetic radiation. We are going headstrong in a forward direction with our heads buried in the sand. I do not believe we spend much time investigating the effects of this stuff.
Perhaps I'm a nut. But I like the freedom of choice to be a nut. Such as not liking to fly and choosing not to. But things like cell phone signals, pager signals, FM/AM radio signals, TV signals, consumer frequency signals, etc. I have no choice in letting permeate my body.
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?
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...
Why should there be redundant private investment in WiFi tech that will be replaced in a few years? We consumers will have to pay for that, too. And multiply: we'll collectively pay for every competing failure, as well as the breakage from failed systems that take down dependent businesses and other consumers.
The mass public investment in power, water, rail, postal and sanitation tech has featured regular upgrades and replacements. And it's become so reliable and cheap that we generally don't even notice it. Not to mention the ongoing mass public investment in private WiFi tech, through tax breaks (and therefore "free" government services the rest of us pay for), government R&D handouts to profitable corporations, fat military contracts, etc.
WiFi uses a single carrier, the "air", which can contain only a certain limited amount of data, with the current "epoch's" tech (not just the current year's "generation") in the useable bands. The rollout of WiFi has predictable, large benefits, along predictable tech improvements. And though WiFi has been cheap and easy for years, private investment hasn't provided the coverage, reliability and availability we expect from basic infrastructure. That's a formula for a "natural monopoly", where at least a government-controlled corporation, regulated by the people, is the most efficient administrator for maximum benefit.
Maybe the nature of this utility as an interactive network offers some improvement over the management of past government services. Its essential features offer the possibility of feedback from its consumers, accountable more directly into its management decisions. Maybe the government's network corporation should issue non-tradeable shares to every potential consumer, attached to voting rights using the network. This utility is extremely powerful in protecting and delivering people's rights to associate, communicate and otherwise do things "the American way". We shouldn't lock ourselves into the propaganda we needed to rally for previous generations' fights with now-dead enemies, cheating ourselves the chance to exploit their successes.
FWIW, the real "replacement" that is coming for WiFi will arrive with cheap, low-power microchip phased array transmitter/receiver antennas. Within 15-20 years, spectrum uniqueness will no longer be required to ensure connections between only the correct communicating counterparties. Like the private package couriers which built on the continuing vast competence of the US Postal Service, premium WiFi services will be able to fill the gaps left by the WiFi utility. Maybe they'll eventually even surpass the public utilities in overall use, and the government can exit the business. But private investment isn't getting us there. It's barely getting us through the wired phase we're now mature in. It certainly isn't getting us to the 802.11x deployment inherent in the tech and market demand. Like most national tech deployments, this one clearly needs government intervention, at least to "prime the pump", demonstrate to everyone that it can be done, and how much it has to offer real people who get a chance to use it, to rely on it. Even if that costs a lot, the benefit to our economy, to our international competitiveness, to our comfort and functions as a vast, complex, interconnected society, are well worth it. The dollar returns will dwarf the investment, once the system gets going. And the dividends to living in such a connected country will speak for themselves.
--
make install -not war