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?
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.
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 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'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.
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
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.
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.
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).