Slashdot Mirror
Google to Offer Free Wi-Fi?
meaning writes "Business 2.0 reports on the possibility of Google building a national broadband network and giving Wi-Fi access to everyone in America. From the article: 'So once the GoogleNet is built, how would consumers connect for free access? One of the cheapest ways would be for Google to blanket major cities with Wi-Fi, and evidence gathered by Business 2.0 suggests that the company may be trying to do just that. In April it launched a Google-sponsored Wi-Fi hotspot in San Francisco's Union Square shopping district, built by a local startup called Feeva. Feeva is reportedly readying more free hotspots in California, Florida, New York, and Washington, and it's possible that Google may be involved.'"
Based on how much difficulty people have had trying to blanket even smallish cities, I have no idea how Google could possibly cover a country the size of America with WiFi. How many thousands of hotspots would it take?
What they should do is bring back Ricochet...
Lately there have been so many newly announced (and shortly there-after: denounced) rumours concerning Google, I'm proposing that Slashdot create a new category just for Google related rumours.
Seriously... are there people out there that have nothing better to do than speculate as to what new thing will come out of google's labs next?
And people say that I need to get a life...
/dev/random
First it was VoIP, then it was IM, now it's Wi-Fi? Why does the news media keep reporting these *completely* unsubstantiated rumors about Google as if they were actually news? Why not wait until Google actually announces what it is going to do? It's not as if there won't be an interminable beta period between announcement and public release anyway. This rampant Google speculation that has gripped the tech media has moved past the "annoying" phase to the "just plain stupid" phase.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
And it doesn't sound like the author hasn't any further proofs or even rumors.
What if Google wanted to install cameras all over the world and call itself Big Google henceforth? What if Google launched a Mars mission and secured themself exclusive rights for the whole planet? What if they bought Blizzard and released the MMORPG World of Google where virtual elves can search a virtual Azeroth-Net for magic potions?
What if Google didn't anything that would cost more than their market capitalisation, instead concentrated on remaining a search engine with new searches for kitchensinks and lost pets and perhaps a cooperation agreement with some other companies (Apple, publishers for their library project, etc) along the way? Or is that last one too far-fetched?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I like Google. Excellent search engine, great news aggregator, webmail done right. But I'm getting more than a little uncofortable about the reach of the company. I have been cutting them a good deal of slack, but I'm gradually coming around on that. They have enough data on me and my habits that they probably can map my relationships better than I can myself. They can know my interests, my taste, my foibles, probably what I'm working on, and the only thing standing between potential knowledge and actual mining of it is a non-binding, pretty vacuous "Don't be evil" statement.
And while free Wifi is great and all, that risks becoming another chokepoint - who will be able to compete in practice if the lazy, easy way is to connect to Google Wifi to access your Gmail account and get the latest news in the Google aggregator or perhaps do some comparison shopping with Google. And finding the store is easy - just click the Google maps link and you'll see exactly where it's at.
If the company ever does decide to be evil, they have a huge amount of subtle control over their users at their disposal.
Oligopolies or monopolies are bad, no matter who is holding it.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Let's take a quiz. Which of these countries has "America" in its name, and would therefore be most likely to use "America" and "Americans"?
Dominion of Canada
United States of America
Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Republica de Guatemala
Republica de Honduras
Republica de El Salvador
Republica de Nicaragua
Republica de Costa Rica
Republica de Panama
Republica de Colombia
Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela
Co-operative Republic of Guyana
Republiek Suriname
Republica Federativa do Brasil
Republica del Ecuador
Republica del Peru
Republica de Bolivia
Republica de Chile
Republica del Paraguay
Republica Argentina
Republica Oriental del Uruguay
I believe that covers everything on the two American continents (French Guiana not being a country). I can go through the island nations in this hemisphere too, if you'd like.
Not that I expect you to even read this, being a troll and all. But still.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
You have to put up so many access points to cover even an average sized office building, nevermind a whole city. You'd practically have to deploy one on top of every street light or telephone pole, and even then it wouldn't cover everything.
Unless, of course, they got a license to use high gain antennas and transmitters, which they wouldn't because Verizon and Friends (c) would cry.
To cover anything but the top 8 big cities would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of WiFi access points.
New long-distance wireless tech shows some promise, but we'll see how well it works and if anyone deploys it. In my opinion, until any broadband technology starts to reach into the rural areas, it's not successful. NYC and San Fran already have so many broadband options that adding one more doesn't even count.
Plus, this whole article is silly anyways. Just because Google sponsers a hotspot doesn't mean they are planning on deploying WiFi on a wide scale.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Not really, no. The Wikipedia entry isn't really correct when it suggests that usage of the term "Americas" is simply disambiguation. There is no single continent named "America". There are two distinct continents differentiated by the prefixes "North" and "South". When referring to both together, the only logical form to use is the plural "Americas". When one says "America", it's patently obvious that one is not talking about the pair of continents. About the only argument that can really be made over the appropriation of the term "America" by the USA is that the dominant country in South America should have had an equal chance at it-- but then, which country would that be?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Actually, as I was informed by my college Spanish professor who spent several decades living in Columbia, calling the USA "The United States," or "Los Estados Unidos" in Spanish, is not a particularly useful term, because there is more than one "Estados Unidos"--Mexico being Los Estados Unidos de Mexico, or The United States of Mexico, if you prefer.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...