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.
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'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!
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...
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.