Free WiFi Trend Continues

Palal writes "San Francisco is about to embark on a Free (or low cost) WiFi campaign with the mayor holding the reins, of course, in hopes of offering more low-income residents easier access to the Internet. Since San Francisco, unlike Philadelphia (previously covered on Slashdot for a similar project), is only 49 square miles, will this work here and can this be accomplished in a year as promised or is this just another political plot to get the Mayor re-elected?"

Comments

Politics

[kevin_conaway]

Everything is politics. That you can be sure of.

As far as it working, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. How will it conflict with Googles offering in the area?

Re:Politics

[Ossifer]

Everything is politics. That you can be sure of.

I doubt it--since the Mayor has like 117% approval ratings due to having hired women heads of the police and fire departments, as well as the whole gay marriage thing, it's unlikely he would have any difficulty being re-elected. Remember this is San Francisco!

low-income residents easier access to the Internet

[Gothmolly]

So people can afford a $400 Dell cheapass PC, but can't spring for a $5 a month Internet dialup connection?
Oh wait, I forgot that its the fault of the people on the 'have' side of the 'Digital Divide' that the other people can't get online. Our village is in shambles! I need a hug.

Gotta Love Canada

[Godboy_g]

They should get local business to participate, they could share the cost, and make it more avilable to end users. That's what they do in my city. We've had free Wifi for over a year now, and they're constantly expanding the coverage. currently it's most of the city. See the following for details: http://www.fred-ezone.ca/index.php

Re:Gotta Love Canada

[SlashdotOgre]

The Rincon Center in the financial district (corner of Speare and Mission) offers free wifi during the week.

Re:Gotta Love Canada

[Jonny_eh]

Since when is Canada a city? I thought it was a country.

Re:Gotta Love Canada

[Godboy_g]

We changed it.... We figured that it would be easier for americans..... It won 7 hockey sticks to 3. :-P

Re:Gotta Love Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Montreal, where's my free wifi?!?

Seriously though, the fact that one city/town does it doesn't make it the staple of the country.

Free as in Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.. it is free until you are hooked.. Then they jack the prices up.

Re:Free as in Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

How long `til you see homeless people sucking...err..things for wifi?

Low income residents in San Francisco

[coflow]

This must be a joke. Last I read, the median income for an SF resident was $160,000. I guess this means SF is looking out for those who are unfortunate enough to only earn $125,000 per year?

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[pointbeing]

This must be a joke. Last I read, the median income for an SF resident was $160,000. I guess this means SF is looking out for those who are unfortunate enough to only earn $125,000 per year?

If you only made $125k a year you'd have a tough time living in SF proper.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[BrynM]

This must be a joke. Last I read, the median income for an SF resident was $160,000. I guess this means SF is looking out for those who are unfortunate enough to only earn $125,000 per year?

You, my friend, obviously don't live here. Walking a couple blocks without being spare changed is a luxury. There are far more crackheads and poor in the Tenderloin than people that make six figures on the entire peninsula. I see kids in the TL every day who need to see more of the world than the people smoking and selling themselves on the street.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[angle_slam]

Last I read, the median income for an SF resident was $160,000.

Slightly off . . . by more than $100k. According to the census, the median household income in San Francisco is $55k.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[coflow]

No, you're correct, I don't. But I've read in several places that there is an extremely high median income there. I've also spoken to friends who have bought houses there, and it's certainly not cheap, nor is the rent apparently. It seems silly to me that the mayor would think giving away $5 to $10 wireless would really help anybody.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[LWATCDR]

And just how would wifi help them?

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should learn how to read because your sense of money is a joke.

From the San Francisco article on Wikipedia:

"The median income for a household in the city is $55,221, and the median income for a family is $63,545. Males have a median income of $46,260 versus $40,049 for females. The per capita income for the city is $34,556."

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[coflow]

You're right, what I have read before is that the median home price is such in SF that a person should earn an income of ~160k to afford it. My mistake. http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/05/06/busi ness/20050506_bu03_real.txt

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[qwijibo]

I'm only semi-joking, but have you considered the homeless people who have laptops? I've read of people who are living out of their cars in the bay area after losing their house. Without connectivity, they'd have a hard time finding a decent job. Keep in mind that this is an area where you can't just get a job at McDonalds to pay rent while you look for a better job. I'm sure the real goal is to make wireless connectivity more convenient for the people who can afford to pay for it, but others can benefit as well.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[SlayerofGods]

So true.
Especially considering the Median house price is 600k in SF!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8633039/

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Golias]

You, my friend, obviously don't live here. Walking a couple blocks without being spare changed is a luxury. There are far more crackheads and poor in the Tenderloin than people that make six figures on the entire peninsula. I see kids in the TL every day who need to see more of the world than the people smoking and selling themselves on the street.

So, in San Fran you have three groups of people:

1. The super-rich, living in the larger of those pretty houses that overlook the bay.

2. The upper-middle class, doing well enough to live in a $600,000 matchbox of a house, and happy enough with it that they won't move to a place where the cost of living is lower.

3. Homeless crack-heads, who are lucky if they can afford a change of clothes.

Of those three groups, which one needs state-funded WiFi? Because I don't see it.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[maelstrom]

Oh come on thats just asinine. If someone was in that position, somewhere like the public library would be a great resource for job hunting on the Internet.

If they are concerned about the homeless, why not spend the money on shelters, food, or even the creation of jobs?

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[NilObject]

So the pop-locker on crates is going to use my change to buy a PowerBook so he can explore the world? Probably not. Same for the homeless kids.

If you can afford to live under a roof in SF, you can probably afford a connection to the internet. If you can't, tough. It's called "not being rich". Those who live in relative poverty aren't going to have a nice shiny modern computer with a 802.11 card anyways.

If you ask me, the money wasted on this program should go to programs like 826 Valencia[1], which is an open-door writing and reading center that lets any kid come in and expand their world through writing.

Maybe S.F. could fund open computer centers for kids? After-school programs? Soup kitchens? Unicorn programs?

[1] http://826valencia.org/

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[qwijibo]

Are you under the impression that politicians do things for well thought out and logical reasons? Here I just thought they did things that sounded good and would look good as bullet points on a future campaign. I'm not saying I think that's a good reason to do this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to claim something similar. Most people wallowing in decadence can't relate to what would really help all the little people.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[doktor-hladnjak]

Actually, that's just in the Bay Area region. Prices are substantially higher in San Francisco proper.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Surt]

Yep, and its that disparity which is going to cause a bit of a collapse in the social infrastructure around here shortly.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Moofie]

Stupid FACTS. Ruined a perfectly good argument...

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[xs650]

"If you only made $125k a year you'd have a tough time living in SF proper."

It would even be difficult to live decently in SF improper on $125k.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[not-enough-info]

Last I read, the median income for an SF resident was $160,000.

Slightly off . . . by more than $100k. According to the census, the median household income in San Francisco is $55k.

...until you take into account the property appreciation rates in the Bay Area. The average SF home owner made more money on the appreciation of his home than his entire pay for the year. Real estate is goddamn ridiculous here, and by the time I'm settled into my well paying engineering job, I won't be able to buy a goddamn house (unless I want a 3 hour commute).

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[zoomzit]

...and this is what sucks about living in San Francisco. Between my wife and I, we are above the $125,000 mark, and below the $160,000 mark. Right now, we could not afford a mortgage on anything in SF proper. To give you a sense of the real estate market, a small 2 bedroom loft in a not so nice neighborhood will cost you $550,000. Parking, backyard and second bathroom are not included.

How in the hell are we supposed to afford that? Even more to the point, how are we supposed to afford that if we also want to raise children at some point?

So we are completely screwed out of buying a place and there is no chance in hell that there will be any financial assitance by the government because of the salary that we bring in.

And so, when we want to buy, we will be moving to Oregon, Colorado, AZ or wherever, and once we arrive, the locals will bitch about another ex-Californian moving to the neighborhood.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Brandybuck]

There's another group. The (non crackhead) homeless person who refuses to move away. The price of housing in San Fransisco is so high, that being homeless and NOT leaving is stupid. If I were homeless in San Fransisco, the first thing I would do after begging enough money for a bus ticket would be to get the hell out of San Fransisco.

Illegal immigrants can come to California's agricultural heartland and get a job that pays enough for them to have a roof over their head. It's not a great roof, and sometimes it's a crappy roof, but it's a roof. Not a grate in the Tenderloin. Why the homeless in San Fransisco aren't flocking eastward to take jobs away from illegal aliens is something I'll never understand. I've worked in the fields alongside illegal immigrants. It's not great work, but it's a damned sight more dignified than begging.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[angle_slam]

..until you take into account the property appreciation rates in the Bay Area.

(1) Property appreciation isn't income. (2) A lot of people can't sell their homes. If they sell it, they can't afford to buy another one.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[2short]

Nice try, but that already counts as income too.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[stefanlasiewski]

I think you are confusing articles. Buying a house in San Francisco requires an incoming of over $160K (Or some other insane amount of money). This issue is a State-wide issues.

And remember-- San Francisco has many, many multi-millionaires. There are also many poor people, and 60% of the residents rent.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Krach42]

I've come to the notion that this is at least in part true for traffic laws. Somehow, the legislators think that just by passing a traffic law, that it will effect people's behaviours, and they'll drive better.

Or the law is written to improve safety so long as the existing laws are being followed.

But such is not a guarentee. People are bending or breaking the laws already. So, things might be a little different or drastically different than that world that they are passing their laws for.

Like Las Vegas, where you run a red light if you were waiting at the last one. It's generally ok, it's your right, and everyone is expecting it.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[ewieling]

What income do they think the homeless people have? Do they consider that when figureing out "average" or "median" income?

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[cpeterso]

The price of housing in San Fransisco is so high, that being homeless and NOT leaving is stupid. If I were homeless in San Fransisco, the first thing I would do after begging enough money for a bus ticket would be to get the hell out of San Fransisco.

Actually, homeless people migrate *to* San Francisco from across California. San Francisco gives away free $100 cash stipends to homeless people on the first of every month (also known as "Emergency room flooded with OD'd crackheads" Day).

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[not-enough-info]

Yeah right, if that were the case then where are all these people who are paying their employers to to work?

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[not-enough-info]

(1) Property appreciation isn't income. (2) A lot of people can't sell their homes. If they sell it, they can't afford to buy another one.

(1)Financing against property appreciation will get you real dollars in hand. Not the home owner necessarily wants to do that. (2)Who cares? Most people didn't buy their homes in cash anyways.

Numbering your comments doesn't make them valid as arguments.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[toddestan]

4. The group of people who have lived in the same house for well over 30 years, and had it paid for back when Ford was the president. Their incomes aren't very high, but since property taxes are somewhat fixed in California, they can still afford to (barely) live in the same house. On paper, they may have half a million dollars in assets, but that doesn't mean they have much cash in their pocket.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Pig Hogger]

From the San Francisco article on Wikipedia:
"The median income for a household in the city is $55,221, and the median income for a family is $63,545. Males have a median income of $46,260 versus $40,049 for females. The per capita income for the city is $34,556."

Wanna bet that some joker already whisked to that Widipedia page and altered the figures???

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[2short]

I honestly cannot determine what that sentence is supposed to mean. Your original assertions, (that the median income of 55K for san fran households was deceptive because it didn't include property apreciation) is just wrong though. Only about a third of SF households are homeowners, and it's almost entirely the higher income third.
The median San Francisco resident makes around 55K and rents.

Re:Low income residents in San Francisco

[Anonymous Coward]

Rent and cost of living in San Francisco, nay, nearly the entire Bay Area, is extremely high. But that doesn't mean the median income is going to be commensurate with that cost. A lot of people out here have mutliple roomates. It's almost essential for most. And scraping by is a way of life. We're still feeling the aftershocks of the dot boom with landlords who refuse to recognize there aren't stock millionaires all over the city anymore.

But anyway, statistically, the median income is not high at all, as others have stated. Whatever you read was wrong about that. I think a big reason for that may be that people get here, and don't want to leave, even after they run out of money.

too bad

[tont0r]

Too bad this didnt work here. And mostly because no one knew about the free service.As a resident of Orlando, I definitely didnt have a clue. I hope that in time it will be reconsidered. Too bad we canned this before it started catching on.

Re:too bad

[saider]

Orlando is too spread out. The system was deployed in the Lake Eola area, where most (relatively wealthy) people already have faster and better connections. About the only benefit to the system was so that a few yuppies near the park could get internet on their lunchbreaks. They came nowhere near providing inexpensive access for the poor. If they wanted that, they would have placed it over by the Arena.

Even if you advertised the hell out of it, 95% of the tax paying residents of the county could not access it. And if they expanded coverage, then the bill would have skyrocketed.

Politics as Usual

[Nom du Keyboard]

or is this just another political plot to get the Mayor re-elected?

Isn't everything a mayor does a plot to get re-elected? I'll believe in altruism when he's paying for it out of his own pocket, rather than out of the taxpayer's.

OTOH, this would sure reduce the incentive for War Driving. And I would like to know what this will do to existing networks.

Re:Politics as Usual

[Skidge]

Isn't it really the mayor's job, when you boil it down, to plot to get re-elected? That's really the only incentive that a mayor has, even one in it for altruistic purposes--more than one term gives them more time to make the world (or city) a better place.

Re:Politics as Usual

[hungrygrue]

So if an elected official does anything for the good of the community that they represent (which is their job), then it is a "political plot"? Wow, that attitude ought to really encourage people to serve.

Re:Politics as Usual

[Elwood P Dowd]

In this particular case, it's probably not much of an incentive: Mayor Gavin Newsom has a sky-high approval rating. He will be elected over and over again.

He handily beat the green party candidate in his first election, and it's only going to get easier. He married gay people, dammit. San Francisco loves him as much as we love puppies.

Re:Politics as Usual

[Phisbut]

Isn't it really the mayor's job, when you boil it down, to plot to get re-elected? That's really the only incentive that a mayor has, even one in it for altruistic purposes--more than one term gives them more time to make the world (or city) a better place.

What about presidents? I mean... Bush, right now... he *knows* he can't get re-elected (no more than 2 terms).

What is his incentive to not be a total fuckup?

Re:Politics as Usual

[dbrower]

plot to get re-elected?

Probably not; Newsom is close to a lock anyway. Unless there is a kickback/corruption scandal associated with this project, it probably won't affect his support in any meaningful way. He probably just thinks its a good idea.

The dude is really well liked in The City as it is.

-dB

Re:Politics as Usual

[i.r.id10t]

Are you saying he isn't a total fuck-up then?

Note that I'm not into bush-bashing, or politics really, but he has been doing some pretty asnine things...

Re:Politics as Usual

[OrangeTide]

SF Mayor is naive and idealistic. I really do believe he is doing what he believes is right, and not for the politics. SF is a big city, but it's mayoral elections have a small town feel. Apparently *anyone* can get elected in that town.

War Driving is illegal in California because you're not allowed to use your laptop while you drive. :)

Re:Politics as Usual

[Moofie]

What about GAY puppies?

Re:Politics as Usual

[morgan_greywolf]

What is his incentive to not be a total fuckup?

Apparently not much.

Re:Politics as Usual

[Phisbut]

Are you saying he isn't a total fuck-up then?

I'm not saying anything, either way... I'm just asking...

Re:Politics as Usual

[Elwood P Dowd]

Don't be disgusting.

Re:Politics as Usual

[Moofie]

Just checkin' my boundaries here. Don't mind me. : )

Re:Politics as Usual

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yeah. I intended that to be funny as well.

Re:Politics as Usual

[Pig Hogger]

Isn't it really the mayor's job, when you boil it down, to plot to get re-elected?

Actually it's the Committee to Re-Elect the Mayor's job...

How?

[Antimatter3009]

I still don't understand how they're going to cover that much area using current technology. The signal just isn't good enough. The only way I can see this being possible is if they use WiMax or something like that.

Re:How?

[Palal]

We have HILLS! And if you place wifi points on hills, you can easily save money in terms of coverage. That's what cell phone companies do.

Re:How?

[Antimatter3009]

I guess a better question then is, how far from the APs do they expect the signal to be reliable?

Re:How?

[Vancorps]

Without a license using 1watt amplifiers? Or with a license using 2 watt amps? Combined that with 20db antennas and you can quite easily cover two miles with one AP. Combined that with about 30 APs placed in a nice star around the city with a massive wireless distribution network then yes. $800 for an Orinoco AP700 or $400 for the AP2000, put two radios in each thats another $100. $200 for the amp and another $150 for the antenna.

In short, yes, I believe it is quite possible using existing technology. I do this twice a year with the 6 APs we have here. I could about 2 squares miles with 802.11b/g. b for obvious reasons doesn't work as well so cut it in half for b users.

Political plot?

[tarp]

I don't think the vast majority of the population cares enough about WiFi to vote for a particular candidate based on that. Yes, San Francisco has more techies per square mile than most American cities, but I'd wager that this isn't a political move. Promising better schools, better roads, public transportation, less crime... those are political moves. Free WiFi, feasible or not, is NOT going to win votes. Most of the computer geeks are too busy playing CS in their parent's basements to hit the polls anyway. (not a troll, but based on my actual observations!)

Re:Political plot?

[mcb]

Good point. Being in Philadelphia, I'd much rather vote for a mayor who drops the absurd wage tax than sets up free wifi.

Re:Political plot?

[timeOday]

Most of the computer geeks are too busy playing CS in their parent's basements to hit the polls anyway.

I don't know that it will work as a vote-getter, but what "actual observations" lead you to believe that WiFi is limited to the techno-cognoscenti? I've seen the Blue Man Group pushing it on TV for the last 4 years, on every corner at Starbuck's, and every other Sunday circular in the newspaper is selling WiFi cards for as little as $15.

I think San Francisco is simply trying to reinforce its unique "Silicon Valley" image. There are many, many other cities around the world trying to wrestle that crown away.

Re:Political plot?

[AnomaliesAndrew]

It's not about politics; it's about money -- which is al politics is about anyways.

Getting re-elected is only a secondary goal so you can maintain the primary object of making money...

It's about creating a project where the contract can be given to a company owned/operated by a friend/family member of said politician.

Just like Iraq and Halliburton.

How to get rich from politics:

1. Get elected as political figure
2. Draft incomplete plans for an ambitious, expensive project
3. Profit!

A failing of American Liberalism

[setzman]

Do these low-income residents have PCs with wireless capabilities? Or does the SF government give them to the poor residents? Don't you think they have higher priorities than free WiFi, maybe food/shelter/clothing/etc?

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[tont0r]

While I'll agree, they should care more if they have food/shelter/clothing, but there is still a boundry between not being able to afford luxuries and damn near close to being on the streets. I think its nice that people who might be able to spring for a cheap computer can now afford internet. Especially now that you can get one for around $200-$400. In fact, there are some places where you can get a internet capable computer for damn near close to free from charities. So its sorta nice that families with kids can now get a computer with an internet connection.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[Bimo_Dude]

While I too agree with the GP regarding food/shelter/clothing, I do think that by providing wifi (and hopfully computers with which to use it) to those less fortunate would give them access to many resources that had been previously out of their reach.

Their kids will be able to do better in school (provided they don't always play games), and maybe the kids and the parents may be able to learn skills that would provide them a better standard of living. It could well be a good way out of "the hole" for them.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[saider]

From what I have heard, at least from our local politicians, this is a marketing ploy to show the world what how techno-cool your city is. Mayors tend to have these grandiose schemes that they feel will have people clamoring to get into their city. This extra publicity and talk may attract more tourists and businesses to the area, which ultimately boosts tax revenue. Not because they have free wifi, but because everyone is simply talking about City X.

The poor rarely benefit from government programs. More often than not the programs simply make life slightly more bearable instead of actually improving their lives.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[KylePflug]

Life being more bearable isn't an improvement?

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

More often than not the programs simply make life slightly more bearable instead of actually improving their lives.

Making someone's life more bearable is not improving it?

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[lightningrod220]

San Francisco must be fairly "techno-cool", since Apple has their developer conference there every summer, and Steve Jobs is always keynoting that. Several thousand Powerbooks would need something to connect to, right? Oh... and the fact that SF isn't too far from Cupertino. That might be a good part of a marketing ploy to keep Apple coming.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[saider]

I guess what I am trying to say is that when people become dependant on government programs, they are less likely to take steps to get off those programs. Not only that, but the rules of government programs create a significant barrier that serve to lock the person into their situation. This is certianly not an improvement.

I have some personal experience with this. I have seen how government programs might keep you from sliding back any further, but they also lock you in and keep you from climbing out of the hole. Climbing out of the hole is much more difficult than staying put, and most people take the path of least resistance. My gripe is that we should help people climb out, not stay put. It is better for everyone.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[zoomzit]

There's a huge difference between "on the street poor" (which SF has a big problem with as well) and "working poor," who can pay for the basics, but not much else.

Although, like everything else, this WiFi move is political, it also makes sense for San Fran. I think San Francisco sees internet connection as becoming another basic utility. San Francisco can provide this utility to their population for cheap, so why not?

San Francisco and Silicon Valley do place a heavy emphasis on being tech savy. There is a big divide here between those who have basic tech ability, and those who dont. Gavin (the mayor) is betting that WiFi for all will help those on the wrong side of the divide catch up.

Another, (and in my view, more problematic) political undercurrent in SF is that our fair city's government wants to take everything they can under local government control. The city is trying to take back the electric and gas utilities from private hands, and they put additional regulations on business who work in the city(i.e. companies must avoid "sweatshop labor" for any products they purchase overseas if they want a city contract,there is higher minimum wage for those who work in SF than the rest of the state) even though the state of California is already on of the most regulated states in the union. If the city government can grow by adding a "San Francisco Department of WiFi," it will make them happy. In fact, it will make everyone in the city happy. There is no anti-big government in San Francisco politics. It's big government (Democrats) vs. even bigger government (Green Party). Republicans aren't even on the SF political map.

In light of the politics in San Francisco, there is no downside for the mayor to do this.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[Brandybuck]

There are free internet connections in the public libraries that dot San Fransisco. Just in case you didn't know. While not a perfect substitute , it at least decreases the utility benefit of tax funded wifi. Don't forget to use it in your calculations.

At least I hope you're using a utility calculus. God forbid you're spending my money just to get a warm fuzzy feeling.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[slappyjack]

I dont think the point of it is to provide everyone with free computers right now, but its sort of a bolt-on tool thats out there should you get the means to use it.

I mean, if they have ubiquitous wireless, that would mean that schoools in lower income areas of town can just plop machines down and immediately be connected. The bookmobile can come around and have machines in it that are already connected.

Its like this - when electrical and water infrastructres were put in 100 and some odd years ago (timeline? i dunno), they were laying in a groundwork that people could connect to. Obviously, not everyone was connecting to the grid immediately, but it was there when they were ready for it.

Re:A failing of American Liberalism

[lysergic.acid]

I'm assuming a city as progressive as SF already has a few food shelters, halfway homes, salvation armies, and other service organizations that do food/clothes drives and distribute these necessities to the poor. And by low-income residents I don't think the article is talking about bums on the street, but rather low-income families that can make ends meet, but to whom broadband (or any kind of) internet access is a luxury they can't afford.

Having free WiFi access just might motivate more people to buy a cheap home computer with a WiFi card and take advantage of the technological resource. To me, this is important, as I'm a strong believer that education and knowledge empower people, and the internet has simply become an indespensible technology to the modern man by putting a previously unfathomable amount of information at your very fingertips.

Personally, I've taught myself most of what I know today through the information available on internet. This includes how to use Photoshop, HTML/DHTML, Javascript, PHP, Perl, MySQL, and other skills that I wouldn't have had it not been for the internet. And you know what? All this information was availabe to me for free--except for the cost of internet access. I've probably read much more information via electronic texts(Project Gutenberg), online articles(Znet, Indymedia, Slashdot, Devshed, Everything2, etc.), e-mail correspondences, forums, etc. than I have through printed materials. If this information had not been accessible to me for free, I probably would not have gotten back into reading for pleasure, I would not have the job skills that I survive on today, and I would not have discovered my passion for intellectual pursuit, art, and philosophy had it not been for the internet.

Sure, a lot of people probably get by just fine without internet access at home, but I think anything that facilitates the free flow of information and can give people easier access to information is a good thing.

Don't be cynical

[ReformedExCon]

Whether or not a politician's actions are based on his desire to get re-elected, I think it is imperative that we support initiatives that are what we would like. In the long run, giving credit for a certain thing to a politician is just part of how history works.

It's not the engineers who get the credit for bringing forth new technologies, it's the managers who do. So too do the politicians get credit for the work of their underlings. The main point is that the benefits are realized, not that someone who had a leadership role gets all the credit.

So yeah, let's get San Francisco unwired up (is that the right way to say it?)! If it works there, at a reasonable cost, maybe we can get initiatives moving in other big cities. The internet is one of those utilities that ought to be available to anyone looking for it. Putting the government in charge of distribution may not be the best choice, but it is a quick fix until private enterprise can compete.

Re:Don't be cynical

[hshana]

Um private companies are competing. Ever heard of NetZero. It's government allowed monopolies that block access and keep the prices higher than they should be that is the problem. Giving it away for free (at the taxpayers' expense) isn't going to make it cheaper or better...

Re:Don't be cynical

[ReformedExCon]

To my knowledge, NetZero isn't providing wireless network services. I am not in SF, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge, though.

But I don't think there's anything preventing the government from working with private companies in setting up these wireless networks. Whether the government provides subsidies to the providers, or whether the government turns management of the networks totally over to the private sector, there isn't really anything that prevents this from being a profitable, private enterprise.

We aren't talking about communism here. Government policies do not necessarily have to restrict private enterprise.

who is this really for?

[AnonymousJackass]

Here's what concerns me about this. Offering free wireless is going to cost money (obviously). Is this really how low-income families would like that money to be spent? Wouldn't they prefer cheaper health care? Better accomodation? Nicer schools? Nicer communities? Did someone actually poll these people and say "we've got $XXXX to spend on you guys -- what do you want?" and the low-income people say "ooh free-wireles would make our lives so much better!"

I'm not trolling -- honest! I just wonder if this isn't, as the blurb suggests, more about PR for the mayor than actually helping people.

Re:who is this really for?

[superpulpsicle]

It blows my mind that US is complaining about the lack of finance available for lighting up the dark fibre underground.

Then here we are, providing a free service. Isn't this another political stunt?!

Re:who is this really for?

[DK777]

I think that it is quite clear as to who this is going to benefit the most, and it isn't the low-income earners. However, historically it hasn't been the low-income earners who cast the most ballots.

Re:who is this really for?

[athakur999]

Or how about free electricity, free water and sewer, etc. I don't really understand why Slashdot groupthink is that the government should supply free broadband when all of the aforementioned services are pretty much basic necessities in the modern world and have a much bigger impact on quality of life, yet no one is suggesting they be made free. I think lower income families would appreciate that alot more.

Re:who is this really for?

[drewzhrodague]

I understand that it costs less to install a city-wide Wi-Fi network (one time fee) than it does to provide trashbags to the same city per year. While those are apples and oranges, you don't need to continuously redeploy the entire network every year. Wi-Fi, when done properly, is not a giant financial undertaking. I'd like to see more of this -- it is sensemaking!

Re:who is this really for?

[zoomzit]

Providing free WiFi is a whole shitload cheaper than any of the other services that you mentioned. Anyway, most everyone in SF rents, and water, electric and sewer are usually covered by the landlords. If SF offered those services for free (or discount) it would only benefit the well off owners of properties, and not the renters who need the assistance.

Re:who is this really for?

[cpeterso]

Renters do not get free utilities. Landlords roll their utility costs into the rent. If landlords' utilities costs decrease, then those savings would trickle down to lower rents.

Re:who is this really for?

[zoomzit]

In theory. In theory communism works. IN THEORY.

In actuality, lowering current utilities will benefit landlords because they will have no incentive to lower their rent. In reality, renters will be plum screwed.

Re:who is this really for?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read the later part of this and become more educated on your own government. Oh wait, surely having polls for every detail of government would be better than our current system! Time for a revolution! :V

Giving it away?

[hshana]

Usually when the big telcos/ISP's say that muni-wifi is anti-competitive, I tend to laugh. Why would SF need to do this as a city? NetZero already offers free internet access. Is that access not deemed sufficient or fast enough by the city? Do less affluent people really need to watch TV over their computers? One of the nice things about living in a major metropolitan area is that you can usually walk to the library or get there easily. I can see offering free access in the library, but to the whole city?

What About Topography

[ndansmith]

Covering 49 square miles in Iowa would be nice and easy. But San Francisco? The topography may present a challenge.

Re:What About Topography

[learn fast]

Not to worry, this is what the transmitter looks like

Re:What About Topography

[rivvah]

This can't be stated enough -- we already have massive problems with cell coverage in this city, I can walk two blocks from my current location and go from 6 bars of signal to 0 bars, dead. All carriers, all areas, if it ain't flat it has problems.

Two questions:

- how is coverage in this hilly city going to be addressed?
- how are you going to keep from stomping on existing networks (11 APs in range at work, 9 in range where I sit right now) like sflan?

The idea is good, but it's going to have some serious hurdles. But all in all we like Gavin, he tries to do good things.

Re:What About Topography

[Jeffrey Baker]

Ah, so what you are saying is the Free Market (TM)(R)(C 2005) that exists in wireless phone service has failed to provide you with good service? I'm shocked. Surely the slashbot libertarian parrots will be unable to appreciate the nuance of your situation.

If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it.

[Suburbanpride]

San francisco is really a pretty small city, at least compared to some place like LA. Getting completle wireless coverage to the importnat areas ( downtown, the hisght, the filmore, noe valley, the castro.) wouldn't be to hard. although to get every inch of the city woudl be a bit more of a chalenge.

It would certianly look good on a mayors resume to say that he provided the whole city with internet access, but for some reason I have a feeling that the people who would benefit most from this are the upper middle class who already have wireless enable commputers. I don't see this doing a lot for those who can't already aford access themsleves.

Re:free good

[Bimo_Dude]

In your rush for FP, you neglected to RTFA, and the summary in incorrect in it's assertion of "free wifi."

FTFA: Free service for all is probably not in the cards, however. The mayor's statement on the TechConnect's Web site specifically calls for "affordable, wireless broadband access."

It may end up being low cost, but likely not free.

802.11n

[SunCrushr]

It would be smart to wait for the official release of the 802.11n spec, as it promises many advantages to a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network), including higher speed, more throughput per client, more clients per AP, and much larger coverage by each AP.

I wouldn't begin implementation of such a project until official spec equipment for 802.11n is ready to be tested, not this Pre-n stuff either, but the real deal.

The best thing about municipal wifi

[hungrygrue]

is that it is useful only in the urban core where population densities are high enough to make use of it. The cost to user ratio in the suburbs and exurbs would make such a project far from attractive. Almost anything that helps to bring people to and keep people in the downtown core is worth trying.

Re:The best thing about municipal wifi

[Raelus]

However, on the flip side, you're going to have quite a few windows users connected who have no firewall and NetBIOS enabled...not that brillant of an idea.

Free access

[matt me]

By free access, as before, we may soon discover that their 'full access to The Internet' is blocking every port but 80.

Re:Free access

[baadger]

And blocking all outgoing connections to websites that aren't family friendly?

How are you going to stop young kids seeing things they shouldn't if people in the streets can surf pr0n? Rely on personal responsibility? NEVER! :o

Re:Free access

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, how dare they offer you something for free that isn't exactly tailored to your needs!

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[pete-classic]

*Hug*

I don't know how I ended up on your foes list. I couldn't agree with your post more.

-Peter

Re:free good

[Raistlin77]

Free (or low cost) In your rush to debunk FP, you neglected to RTS (read the summary), and the summary is correct in it's assertion that it is indeed not free.

Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

When I saw the headline about the "Free WiFi trend", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free WiFi, like when a private resident or coffee shop opens up their 802.11g encryption so anybody in range is free to use it.

Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory WiFi, in which residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes, whether they have better alternatives available or not.

Now it seems we need three different definitions for "Free":

1. Free as in "speech"
2. Free as in "beer"
3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[FictionPimp]

still not as bad as the mandatory recylcing program our county has. I have to pay for a service I have no intention of using 32.00 a year.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[oringo]

I would agree with you if the following things were true:

1. Electricity is free
2. Network bandwidth is free
3. Network maintainance is free
4. Network adminidstrators can live off air

So yah, shove your idealistic freedom and face the reality. Plus, TFA never mentioned anything like $5 fee. All I read was that the city hasn't made any financial commitment yet to the $18-20 million cost.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Plus, TFA never mentioned anything like $5 fee.

Neither did I. Try to keep up.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

This isn't insightful. Please, someone take the mod points away from the right-wing nutjob.

So now you are a right-wing nutjob if you point out that "tax funded" and "free" are not exactly the same thing? I know a lot of democrats who will be shocked to learn that they are right-wing nutjobs. I can hardly wait to tell them the news.

You are one of those people who complains to the letters page of the Villiage Voice that Howard Dean isn't being combative enough, aren't you?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Brandybuck]

3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"

Well it is San Fransisco after all.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

*sigh*
[sarcasm]
I know exactly what you mean. I hate all that mandatory, pre-billed bullshit the government forces me to buy. Roads, schools, scientific exploration, law and order... I wish we could just get a menu and order only the things that we personally are going to use...
[/sarcasm]

seriously though, if you've ever attended a public school, used a public library, driven on a public road, or used the fruits of Government Scientific research (velcro, the internet... etc), you might just want to reconsider your previous knee-jerk belly-aching about public funds being used to supply a public good. If the nature of what the government provided for the public good never adopted new technologies, we'd still be waiting on the pony express to deliver our mail.
And yes, you have to pay for government, or go to jail. its called citizenship.

"We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we dont want to pay our taxes, Why... We're free to spend a weekend with the pain monster!"

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[jamboarder]

Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory WiFi, in which residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes, whether they have better alternatives available or not.

You mean like we're forced to pay for tax breaks, rights-of-way and other legal and illegal incentives for business to provide the same thing? Why not just cut the middle man out and avoid all the other kind of bitching we should be doing, but don't, when the oh-so-sacred business stands between us and government.

blah...

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Pentagram]

When I saw the headline about the "Free WiFi trend", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free WiFi, like when a [...] coffee shop opens up their 802.11g

In that case you're paying for the wifi in increased coffee prices.

Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory WiFi, in which residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes

Forced is a bit strong; the residents of the city voted for the mayor.


Now it seems we need three different definitions for "Free":
1. Free as in "speech"
2. Free as in "beer"
3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"

Only if they vote for the candidate.
3. Free as in "voted for it to be free at the point of use, but paying for it in taxes"

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Brandybuck]

Mentioning that taxation isn't free makes one a "right-wing nutjob?" Holy shit!

I don't car if you're left wing, right wing, or buffalo chicken wing with extra sauce, TAXATION IS NOT FREE! Taxation is a *monetary* payment! This isn't saying that taxation is good or evil, it's merely stating a fact. If you feel that funding a city wifi network with tax funds is good policy, then say so. But don't call it "free" because it is not. And don't go calling names just because someone mentions the lack of gratis and libre.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Easy, cowboy.

If you (via your elected representatives... not to mention "voting with your feet") feel that tax-funded Wi-Fi is worth it, then good luck with that. Just don't lie by calling it free, is all. That's all I was saying.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[cvdwl]

By that standard, there is no such thing as free. You pay in advertising budgets, inflation, environmental damage, time invested, or some other currency for every "free" item out there.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

When I saw the headline about the "Free WiFi trend", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free WiFi, like when a [...] coffee shop opens up their 802.11g

In that case you're paying for the wifi in increased coffee prices.

Cute that you put "..." in place of "private homes", and cut off the part about encryption removal.

Park in front of a Dunn Bros. Coffee shop, or for that matter, in my driveway, and you are on the Internet for free. Free as in beer.

Forced is a bit strong; the residents of the city voted for the mayor.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. If the 51% residents of your town decided that you, personally, should pay half your income in taxes in order to fund a small property-tax cut for everybody else, would "forced" still be too strong of a word?

If majority-rules was a fair way to decide everything, we could reduce the entire Constitution and all of the amendments to a single line: "Whatever the people vote for, that's what we do."

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[stupidfoo]

Weird system you guys have. Up here in the liberal capital of the upper mid-west (aka Minneapolis) we pay less if we recycle than if we don't.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

By that standard, there is no such thing as free.

I gave my neice a swingset for free last Christmas.

If you are at my house, you may use my WiFi for free.

In a couple weeks, I'll be helping a charity called "Sharing and Caring Hands" serve free meals.

Free (as in beer) exists. All that it requires is somebody willing to offer it while asking nothing in return.

However, if you take some of my money and then use it to offer me something "for free", that is not the same thing.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

I think you will find that our recylcling program in the Twin Cities is subsidized. You are paying more than you think you are.

See, they take a bunch of your money to encourage you to use the recycling service by 1. investing public funds into the recycling program, and 2. jacking up landfill fees.

Now, that all doesn't seem so bad if you are of the opinion that landfills are bad for Mother Earth and will be the death of us all unless we send all our unused paper to chemical processing plants, where they will sit around composting in warehouses for months, and then what remains is turned into slightly lower-quality paper for re-use.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[_Sharp'r_]

"public funds to supply a public good"

There is a difference between saying "schools should be funded through the government" and "schools should exist and teach people things, even people who can't afford it".

You are setting up a false dichotomy where supposedly the only way we could have the "public good" you mention is through government forcing people to pay for it in taxes, wasting 50% of the money and then providing the services, usually poorly and to most people's dissatisfaction. The only alternative you apparently can imagine is that no one has those things.

Imagine if the government turned grocery stores into a "public good" so as to provide everyone with their basic food needs. That's at least as reasonable and necessary (if not more so) than your other examples of government providing a "public good".

Based on current examples of similar government programs, what we'd end up with is overpaying for lousy food in a poor selection, with some people who still buy their food elsewhere at an extreme premium in addition to funding their "free" food.

And people with your mentality would be talking about how everyone in the country would starve if the government hadn't stepped in to provide free food and what are people complaining about...

See, it's not that we disagree about the goals. We all want a good road/network/whatever infrastructure, a good educational system, etc... it's just that we don't all agree that the only choices are central planners forcing people to do it their way or nothing at all.

Think of the worst run things in our country that people complain about the most how they are handled and that they are problems that need to be solved still. Something you'll find in common is that they are almost all government run or highly-regulated government-granted monopolies.

It's the empirical evidence that makes the rest of us question why people keep wanting to do things the same way, just becuase some power-hungry politician wants to be in control of it so that he can claim to be providing it for "free" as a benefit to the people.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

And the point i was making is that there are any number of goods and services provided by the government that are, in the parlance of our times, referred to as "free."

It is by no means a lie to cal municipal wi-fi free, it is simply a usage of the word that, pervasive tho it is, does not fit into the beer-speech paradigm.

We fund projects, through taxes, that were they to be paid for solely by the specific users would be prohibitively expensive. I refer you again to public education, libraries, roads, and scientific research. Once they are funded, they are open to all, free of charge at at time of use.

We always pay for everything, even free beer, though it may not be with legal tender.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[gv250]

if you've ever ... used the fruits of Government Scientific research (velcro, the internet... etc), ...

You might want to check your facts there, Admiral. Velcro was invented by an individual, on his own time, investing his own money, in the expectation of making a profit. http://www.velcro.com/about/history.html

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[timmy the large]

The swingset is due to a relationship you have with that child's parents. It may not have cost the child anything in dollars, but relationships require some amount of energy to maintain. The same goes for your WiFi.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

And the point i was making is that there are any number of goods and services provided by the government that are, in the parlance of our times, referred to as "free."

It is by no means a lie to cal municipal wi-fi free, it is simply a usage of the word that, pervasive tho it is, does not fit into the beer-speech paradigm.

Which is why I think we need another "as in" category for the word, because when you say "the parlance of our times" what you really are saying is "when we are being lied to."

I refer you again to public education, libraries, roads, and scientific research.

I don't consider any of those things to be free. Money well spent, yes, but I'm not so deluded as to imagine that any of them come for free.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Oh, i see. slavery, yes, quite. excellent quip.

Well, if slavery to you is being coerced into taking responsability for ensuring the common good, then surely the right to vote is tantamount to some form of rape?

though I suppose in a way we are indeed slaves to our own laws...

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

The swingset is due to a relationship you have with that child's parents. It may not have cost the child anything in dollars, but relationships require some amount of energy to maintain.

LOL! Yeah, my brother's 2 year-old daughter must have spent a lot of energy maintaining her relationship with me. I just wasn't looking at the time.

The same goes for your WiFi.

Incorrect. For all I know, somebody I've never meet is sitting on the curb in front of my house, using my WiFi connection at this very moment.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[hey!]

Landfill fees are getting expensive because it's costing the cities more to use them, and they pass the cost along to you. After all, they aren't, as the saying goes, making an more land. And there's NIMB: people living near potential sites have wised up to the pollution costs of having landfills nearby. So you can't just chuck everything away where nobody will squawk.

I'm sure that while civic mindedness is the spark for many a recycling program, the increased cost of dumping is the fuel.

where they will sit around composting in warehouses for months, and then what remains is turned into slightly lower-quality paper for re-use.

This seem to me to be incredibly irrelevant. Why should anyone care how long the paper sits in a warehouse before it is reused? As long as that mills put out recycled paper at approximately the same rate it goes back the warehouse, there is no problem. It seems me what happens here is that the price of the recycled product, the price of storing and reprocessin the waste papaer, and the price of virgin paper all have to exist in a kind of equillibrium.

With respect to quality, you're right: it's slightly less, but enough that it makes no difference for most uses. If you look at a typical office's recycling versus their filing and postage, it's clear that for many of them the majority of their paper gets thrown out rather than stored or mailed away. So it hardly matters whether it's virgin paper.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[FictionPimp]

Yep, our recyling is taken out of 1.50 of our water bill per month (St. Jospeph county, Indiana) or if you have well water then will bill you 16.00 every 6 months (which is more then if you have city water btw). They give you a box to put out every other week with crap to recycle.

Now here is the kicker. I can choose my trash company, there are about 4 companys that do trash. But no matter which one I choose, Waste Managment (a private company) will get 32.00 of my money for recyling. I didn't choose them for trash pickup because they were too expensive and only came every other week. Not to mention they would not pick up as much trash. So even though I can vote with my wallet, the county makes sure I still support an inferior service.

In any case, its a rip off and it should be illegal to charge someone for a service they do not use. They even make you pay it if no one lives in the house and there is no trash service (they will give you a one time 3 month credit). Its too bad too many people hear recyling and think its always a good thing.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

The landfill my city currently uses is down in Burnsville, and is not likely to reach full capacity in my lifetime, but it is true that landfills are expensive. Not just because of "nimbyism", but because we've learned enough about potential problems like soil contamination that all the required safeguards of a landfull cost a huge amount of money to do properly.

This seem to me to be incredibly irrelevant. Why should anyone care how long the paper sits in a warehouse before it is reused?

Because a lot it doesn't get reused. Ever. Paper recycling collection far out-paces our capacity to process it. Also, paper recycling plants cause a hell of a lot more environmental damage than a plant which simply pulps virgin wood from tree farms. The chemical waste produced from the process is considerably more difficult to deal with than old paper.

The best way to recycle paper is the way my grandfater up in Northern Minnesota does it: In the wood furnace that heats his home.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

you've misunderstood the point I was making. You are setting up an example where because one particular area of public life shouldnt be government organized, (and i agree with your example, btw, gov run groceries would be horrid) no areas of public life should be government organized. This is a fallacious argument. Scared of the power-hungry politicians wanting to be in control? How about the greedy and corrupt corporate CEO's? dont think thats a fair characterization? then why dont we dispense with the bullshit labling. Public organization is, in certain instances, such as education, defense, and the development of infrastructure, because it is held responsible by all, while a corporation is responsible only to its shareholders. And if Enron, WoldCom, and Tyco are any indicators, even this responsibility cannot be counted on. If you'd like to cite a bit of that empirical evidence by the way, please dont let me stop you. I'm on tenderfoots.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

The real sick part about it is that Waste Management was one of the first companies in America to get busted for an Enron-type accounting scandal. It's a crooked company, but if you live in Minnesota, your tax dollars help sustain it.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

fact checking is for chumps. ... well, my bad. guess the whole velcro comes from the space race thing is just urban legend.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your suggesting the flipside is better. Business controlled healthcare, energy, telecommunications and MSM have done such a great job in making america a free market right? And government regulations have done a bang up job keeping them in check.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[milkman_matt]

3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"

We've always had that, they just call it "Taxes" for short.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

no, when I say in the parlance of our times, I do not mean when we are being lied to.
kindly do not put words in my mouth.

I think there is a fundamental difference between somthing that comes to us as a result of our well spent tax dollars and something we are charged for at time of use.

we appear to disagree on this point.

you appear to disagree with a major linguistic convention of our society, fine, I can respect that. I dont think youre a terrorist if you're not with the president.

My main thought is that paying for public works such as roads education, etc is different from buying a cheesburger. both may be money well spent, but public works are in the public sphere and for the public good, and to consider those expenditures in the same terms as buying a cheesburger is, to my mind, inappropriate.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[GlassHeart]

it should be illegal to charge someone for a service they do not use.

Obviously, society collapses when each citizen is allowed to be entirely selfish. I think you would be happy to never need fire or police services in your lifetime, but you would probably not prefer to pay the full cost of such services if you are so unlucky to need them. That doesn't mean taxes should fund recycling programs or open WiFi connections or any other particular service, but it does mean that there's probably an arguable point where government should force you to pay for something you don't use.

Its too bad too many people hear recyling and think its always a good thing.

It's also too bad that many people, irked by the inefficiencies or expenses or recycling, forget that it's even better to reuse or avoid consumption when you can.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Well, if slavery to you is being coerced into taking responsability for ensuring the common good, then surely the right to vote is tantamount to some form of rape?

A lot of people from Florida certainly seem to think so.

I'm not a fan of hyperbolic expressions. Taxes are not "slavery", but they are manditory, and therefore a constitutional government has a responsibility to only spend money on things which promote the general welfare of the people. Roads and schools count. Even if we don't drive, everything we buy arrives on trucks. Even if we have no kids in public school, we can know that everybody we meet has had an opportunity to be educated. The military, the police, the fire department... all things which we all rely on. They count.

An opera house or a sports stadium? Now you're pushing it. The vast majority of the people paying for it will not enjoy much of an advantage from it.

"Free" WiFi or those "Yellow Bikes" that St. Paul thought was such a neat idea a few years ago? Hell no.

When it comes to evaluating how government money should be used, P.J. O'Rourke invented the ultimate litmus test for libertarian cranks like me:

Taxes are manditory. Fail to pay them, and you can go to jail. Attempt to break out of jail, and you could end up getting shot. Therefore, for every government spending proposal, ask yourself "would I shoot my favorite grandmother over this?" If the answer is "no", then we can do without the state funding it.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[LPetrazickis]

I gave my neice a swingset for free last Christmas.

So, in your world, the US government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of Brazil and the Brazilian government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of US? And anything else is unethical?

However, if you take some of my money and then use it to offer me something "for free", that is not the same thing.

It's free in the sense that you'll be paying less than you would be for a private service because of economies of scale. It's also free in the sense that it will be encouraging economic development and thus reducing the tax load on you in the long term.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[m50d]

Mentioning that taxation isn't free makes one a "right-wing nutjob?" Holy shit!

No, thinking that this point - which comes up 3 times in every thread that ever mentions municipal authorities providing anything - deserves an insightful moderation rather than redundant and troll makes one a right-wing nutjob. The only reason anyone would mod it up was because they thought modding up a right-wing point was more important than modding up someone who contributes to the discussion.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

then why dont we dispense with the bullshit labling. Public organization is, in certain instances, such as education, defense, and the development of infrastructure, because it is held responsible by all, while a corporation is responsible only to its shareholders.

What shareholders universally want is to make money, and in a capatalist society, nearly all money is made one way: By satisfying consumers.

Therefore, it's slightly misleading to say that a corporation is "responsible only to its shareholders," because the responsibility in question is to find and satisfy customers - in other words, to provide goods and services that people want at prices they are willing to pay.

It's a fantastic organizing principle, and it usually only goes horrifically wrong when the government gets involved. ADM, Global Crossing, Enron, etc. These are (or "were") companies with very close ties to our elected officials which have allowed them to manipulate laws and regulations in their favor.

I've already quoted P.J. O'Rourke once in this thread, but I'm about to do it again:

"When government gets involved in commerce, the first thing bought and sold is the government."

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

well, denied right to vote in florida, of course...

I'd say that internet access, not necessarily "free" wifi, but some form of internet access does qualify, or will at some point in the future.

I think that what counts as promoting the general welfare needs to evolve with technology, and our country is falling behind in access to information technology. one possible way to remedy this is govt-sponsored internet access. I'm not really attached to it one way or the other. I'm just not sure that a gov. isp could be much worse than comcast, isall

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[timmy the large]

The child is a minor, the relationship with your brother is were the time is invested. Also, if someone is using your WiFi without your permission is illegal, thus the cost to the person is in the form of risk of getting caught and having some sort of crimanal charge brought against them.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

So, in your world, the US government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of Brazil and the Brazilian government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of US? And anything else is unethical?

No.

WTF are you talking about? Did you even read my original post, or did it just skim it and decided I was one of those kooks who opposes all government spending of any kind and wants Income Tax made unconstitutional again?

It's free in the sense that you'll be paying less than you would be for a private service because of economies of scale.

So, if we outlawed UPS and FedEx, then sending packages would become vastly cheaper because of the "economies of scale" applied to the Post Office?

It's also free in the sense that it will be encouraging economic development and thus reducing the tax load on you in the long term.

That's not a sense of free. It's also not established to be true.

If I buy stock in a company and make money over the long term, that doesn't mean I got the stock for free. It just means the gain outweighed the cost.

This should be a perfectly simple principle: If it costs money, it's not free.

Earlier in the thread, somebody was critical of moderators for calling my original post "Insightful" when I was saying something so completely obvious and self-evident. Now there are a good half-dozen posts proving him wrong, because this is clearly a concept which utterly escapes some people.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Oh, for fuck's sake, why are you still arguing this point?

The swingset cost my niece NOTHING, therefore it is FREE to HER.

If somebody is using my WiFi at the moment, it is not without my permission. I don't care if they use it or not, and there's no law against logging in to an open network hotspot.

So you are completely wrong in both cases. STFU.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

I think there is a fundamental difference between somthing that comes to us as a result of our well spent tax dollars and something we are charged for at time of use. we appear to disagree on this point.

Didn't you just criticize me for putting words in your mouth? I don't disagree with that point at all. In any way.

you appear to disagree with a major linguistic convention of our society, fine, I can respect that.

Thank you for your respect. That's actually the only point made in my original post: That "Free" has now been unwisely expanded to incorporate things which are not actually free.

A linguistic point was the only point I made. I never said collectively paying for WiFi was a bad idea.

I think it is, but for other reasons. (I'm convinced that it will lead to overregulation, a stifling of technological advancement in communications, and ultimately, government oversight of Internet content.) However, that was not the point I was making... A lot of people made a lot of bold assumptions about the agenda behind my words, rather than simply take what I said at face value.

I take it as an indicator of the utter failure of most people to engage in rational discourse about pretty much anything.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Every time somebody says that OS X runs on top of BSD, people will post a correction, pointing out that it actually runs on a Mach microkernel and has a BSD compatability layer.

Likewise, everytime somebody calls something "free" when it is funded with taxes, people will post a correction, stating that it's not really free, but rather is a hidden cost.

Instead of getting pissed off at the nit-picks, people should endeavor to get it right the first time.

Far more tiresome than politically-motivated moderation is people who post instructions to "mod down" those points which they dislike. I see from your comment history that this is something you do a lot.

If my comments pain you so greatly, instead of spending your energy trying to convince others to help you censor views you don't like, just put me and anybody else who expresses an opinion you can't handle on your "foes" list and set us at -6 in your preferences.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[bigpat]

Taxes are manditory. Fail to pay them, and you can go to jail. Attempt to break out of jail, and you could end up getting shot. Therefore, for every government spending proposal, ask yourself "I'm not a fan of hyperbolic expressions. Taxes are not "slavery", but they are manditory, and therefore a constitutional government has a responsibility to only spend money on things which promote the general welfare of the people."

Slavery is an "institution based on a relationship of dominance and submission, whereby one person owns another and can exact from that person labor or other services." How is this not equivalent to modern taxation? The state asserts ownership over its citizens and compels them to work for its benefit.

"would I shoot my favorite grandmother over this?" If the answer is "no", then we can do without the state funding it.

Exactly, it should never be overlooked by those of an authoritarian philosophy that the fundamental mechanism of government coercion is violence. Libertarians are of the belief that violence is only justifiable in self defense and that that is the basis for our civilization. Therefore for a government to threaten violence against people in the form of taxation cannot be justified except in matters directly related to the common defense.

Fundamental to that would be defense from outside threat, which is countered with military force. And the threat from within which is countered with police and a system for resolving disputes between individuals in the form of a court system.

Communication systems are necessary for the common defense, so I would agree that wifi or any other system is perfectly acceptable on priciple alone as a use of taxpayer money.

Ultimately, though taxation should not be mandatory because it is merely a form of servitude and I don't think you can or should sugar coat it any other way. Far better to simply to deal with those that don't pay by social exclusion. That way, taxation that did not have popular support would be untenable.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Were I on Comcast, I might be inclined to feel the same way.

Thankfully, the guys at IPHouse.com are awesome. They answer ridiculous support calls at sick hours of the evening and are extremely helpful and friendly people. Push them out of business using my taxes to do it, and you're certainly no friend of mine.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[_Sharp'r_]

It is somewhat humourous that you cite the very areas I was talking about, areas in which high amounts of regulation and government forced monopolies have caused problems.

Healthcare: Massive government programs, super-regulated insurance policies, massive market distortions through tax policies regarding company and personal health expenses, government prevention of medicine use through the FDA, government enforced licensing to keep out competition, typically government funded and run facilities in most areas, especially large cities.

Energy: Highly regulated, most customer facing portions of the industry are government granted or owned monopolies for geographic areas, most production and refining facilities are severely limited by government in terms of construction and placement. The major reason gas prices have been steadily increasing is that we don't have enough refineries to meet the demand. We haven't built a new refinery in the US in 30 years not because no one thinks one would be profitable, but because government typically won't let them be built.

Telecommunications: Again, a major history of government regulation and government enforced monopoly status.

MSM: (Main stream media, I presume?) How did it become the main stream media, at least the broadcase networks? That's right, government granted monopolies on broadcast spectrum.

How about you pick some areas that are actually free of government and not examples of major government interference, control and forced non-competition?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[_Sharp'r_]

Let's let you do your own personal empirical study and see if it is similar to other's experiences.

List the top 5 or 10 least regulated, least government controlled areas of interaction with others you have. That's somewhat vague, but things like the Internet (but not the local loop portion of it, since that's heavily government influenced), various areas of merchandise sales, local lawn trimming service, whatever, as long as you can mentally classify it into a group of related stuff with a somewhat common level of government intervention or lack thereof. Areas we look to private industry for the "answers" to the problems.

Ask yourself how much you've complained about those things in the last year because of unreasonable cost, wasted resources, lack of options or poor service without many alternatives.

Now list the top 5 or 10 most regulated, most government controlled areas of interaction with others you have. Areas we look to private government for the "answers" to the problems.

Ask yourself how much you've complained about those things in the last year because of unreasonable cost, wasted resources, lack of options or poor service without many alternatives.

Now compare the lists and see which appears to be serving you personally better. This completes our empirical study. You might be interested in speculating what other people's personal interaction study results would lead you to conclude also.

Now, I am not saying that in every single case, government is not the answer. Just that in a large number of cases that are currently considered "government solution or no solution" by many people, we at least deserve to do some trial runs to see if perhaps a non-government solution isn't better, based on the evidence comparing previous government vs non-government solutions.

I am saying that we should be looking at ways to move some of these wasteful forced government ventures out of the realm of government, rather than continue to come up with new things to put under the purvey of government, like this wifi program. Over the last 150 years it's been going in the direction of more forced government control of our lives and some of us think our lives would be better if the trend went the other way for a while.

For example, with school choice initiatives, isn't it interesting that not only did the overall average student performance increase, but so did the average student performance for student's inside the public schools, just because of the highly visible competition?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

what things ARE really free?

I think my basic point is that when you receive something from a govt funded program at no further charge, it is free, at that moment, and only in a certain way.

I agree with you that it does not fit into the beer-speech dualism, but I'm not sure that it is tantamount to being lied to.

not sure where that leaves the argument, but...

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

it is a fantastic organizing principle, but only as far as it goes.

I flatly disagree that a corporation has an fundamental interest in satisfying its customers. Its chief good is providing profit to its shareholders, and if it must do that in some way other than satisfying its customers, then that is what it will do. In other words, satisfying the customers is a means not an end.

I would also argue that there is a fundamental flaw in the way in which corporations are managed. This was shown in the WorldCom, Enron, and Tyco debacles. Managers are dependent on positive feedback to maintain their positions of power, and will often attempt to fake it in the short run as a boost to bigger and better things in the long run. This is not dissimmilar to the actions of many politicians. The difference, however, is that the rules binding politicians and governing the method and prodedure of public review and accountability is founded in the law, and happens necessarily in the public view. Within the corporate world, the rules binding CEO's and other managers are founded in civil contract, and are "legal" systems only in an of themselves. They are not transparent, and even if they were, they give no recourse to those who might be affected by a corporations actions but are not shareholders.

Some government regulation is necessary, I hope you would agree. Without it, we'd still be eating thumbs in our canned meats, and at the mercy of the whims of modern-day robber-barons.

As fantastic an organizing system as it is, there is no escaping the fundamental dissonance between the shareholder group, and the circle of affected populace for the actions of any given corporation. There will always be, in a capitalist society, those who cannot afford to own stock in one company, let alone every company that affects their lives. Only the government can guarantee, or at least pledge to try, to protect the interests of all members of society, because everybody is a shareholder, and every shareholder only gets one equal vote.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

well, I'm not going to construct your argument for you. you can refer me to these empirical studies you seem to think exist, or you can not. as to the "school choice initiatives, each side of that debate seems to think that the numbers support their case. For myself, I'm merely uncomfortable allowing public funds to go to schools that discriminate on the basis of ethincity and religious belief (non vindictively, for "special interest" schools, but discriminate nonetheless).

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Brandybuck]

If you would stop to notice, you will see that the title of the topic is " Free WiFi Trend Continues". If "taxation != free beer" is obvious and redundant, then why do so many people keep making this elementary mistake?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your glass, paper, plastic, or metal go in the same bin, you can rest assured it all ends up in the landfill. Many places do this just to make their naive religious nuts are happy.

Do you really think recycled paper has a big enough profit margin to pay people to sort it? Especially since you can't quite get newspaper quality with 50% "post-consumer" recycled material. That "recycled" paper you buy is the scrap from the last batch that hadn't even dried yet.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Pig Hogger]

It's amazing to see the lengths to which some people will bullshit to promote their "libertarian" point of view, whereas they'd be the first to run to their mommies when the kind of hardship government deals with will hit them...

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The goverment is supposed to be there to protect us from power hungry greedy CEOs, not take their place. And there are actually fewer power hungry greedy CEOs than power hungry greedy politicians, even though there are way way way more CEOs than politicans, which is also a plus, and another check on the system.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Golias]

Its chief good is providing profit to its shareholders, and if it must do that in some way other than satisfying its customers, then that is what it will do. In other words, satisfying the customers is a means not an end.

Very true, but satisfying customers is usually the best means to the desired end. The end result is that Walmart becomes fantastically wealthy by selling people stuff they want at prices they like. Microsoft becomes fantastically wealthy by selling a relatively cheap, relatively easy OS which runs on commodity hardware. Oil companies become fantastically wealthy by selling us the cheapest available energy source, which we so desperately want for our cars and our electricity.

Corporations don't always act in the best interest of society, but they usually act in the interest of meeting the demands of their customers, which coincides more often than it doesn't.

If this wasn't true, capitalism would have utterly collapsed a long time ago, and command economies like Cuba would be far better off than free-market economies like Singapore.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Pentagram]

Cute that you put "..." in place of "private homes", and cut off the part about encryption removal.

Because I could only be bothered to respond to the part of your post that I felt was the most ridiculous. There is no obligation for me to shred all your points :P

If majority-rules was a fair way to decide everything, we could reduce the entire Constitution and all of the amendments to a single line: "Whatever the people vote for, that's what we do."

I don't live in a country with a formal constitution, and yet we seem to get along fine. I think you could indeed reduce it to such a line with little recognisable difference.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, punk, but if you want to learn, you have to think.

If you already disagree with someone, hearing their conclusions won't pursuade you. But if you want to know if those conclusions are correct, you will have to duplicate the experiment yourself.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[LPetrazickis]

Hmm. All right, fine. It's public. As for free -- well, if you only have money for food and shelter this year, you still get wireless internet without paying a cent. "Free" is allowed to have many meanings.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[drsquare]

Schools or scientific exploration and what not can't entirely be provided privately, so it needs to be tax-payer funded. A private road system wouldn't work, you can only have one road outside of your house, law and order can't br private.

However...there is no need or cause for tax-funded Internet access. Anyone who needs it can afford it. Basic dial-up is dirt cheap. I'd bet that 99% of people who would use it already have a private Internet connection. The other 1% just don't really care enough to buy one packet of cigarettes less a month to pay for it.

Notice how there's no tax-payer funded electricity, gas or water, you have to pay a corporation for it.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[_Sharp'r_]

I said empirical evidence, not studies. From the first definition on Google: "Evidence derived from direct observation and sense experience."

As for related studies, you'd almost need a full economics course to cover them in proper depth.

What you question about school choice makes my point as well. If parents are purchasing education as consumers instead of taxpayers, there is no need for anyone to worry about if the school is going to teach "their way" with their tax money. If it doesn't, they can just switch schools and who they are paying. Parents could make an informed decision and have their children taught based on their own values instead of the values of whatever the predominate government-bureacrat-sanctioned philosophy is.

See, with a real divorce of school from being a government forced-pay business, you aren't forced to pay for schools that you don't agree with how they teach, unlike now where just about everyone with a kid in school would change some aspect of how or what that school teaches, no matter what side of whatever popular argument they are currently on.

Why can't the atheists pay for a school that teaches their philosophy and the religious pay for a school that teaches their philosophy? The only real reason is that there are some people who insist on using government power to brainwash other people's kids into their own ways of thinking, despite the desires of the kid's parents.

Just like not everyone wants or needs the exact same food preferences, not everyone wants or needs the exact same education preferences. Why are we forcing people to use one and subsume their needs into a bland majority and not the other? What about kids who can't afford a good education? We can handle that the same way we handle people who can't afford decent food. Use private (or even public if you must involve tax money) charity for scholarships available to all who need them. There are tons of schemes out there to take care of that side of the issue.

Sure, in neither case would you want truely abusive parents who would starve their kids, make them eat nothing but dirt or fail to teach them anything at all. There is a very small minority of people who do things wrong, but why force everyone else in the country to forsake food or educational opportunities and preferences instead of simply dealing with and punishing a small number of abusive situations?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[standards]

residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes

You think that's bad... I'm being forced along with millions of others to pay for a half-trillion dollar war to merely please energy companies and to stroke the ego of a few guys in Washington.

Some poor people are even being killed, as well as taxed.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[GnarlyNome]

Well..What did you expect from the Peoples Republic of San Francisco ?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[m50d]

Every time somebody says that OS X runs on top of BSD, people will post a correction, pointing out that it actually runs on a Mach microkernel and has a BSD compatability layer.

Likewise, everytime somebody calls something "free" when it is funded with taxes, people will post a correction, stating that it's not really free, but rather is a hidden cost.

And every time somebody makes a spelling or grammar error, someone posts to correct it. And is quite rightly modded down.

Instead of getting pissed off at the nit-picks, people should endeavor to get it right the first time.

I do get it right the first time. That doesn't mean I see any less nit-picks.

Far more tiresome than politically-motivated moderation is people who post instructions to "mod down" those points which they dislike. I see from your comment history that this is something you do a lot.

No, I've been doing it a lot the last couple of days, I'm in an irritable mood. If you look at my whole comment history you'll find it's actually pretty rare. And I don't think any of it's politically motivated - I'm just fed up of reading the same dumb comments again and again and again.

If my comments pain you so greatly, instead of spending your energy trying to convince others to help you censor views you don't like,

So modding down is censorship now? Funny, the slashdot FAQ says it isn't.

just put me and anybody else who expresses an opinion you can't handle

It's not an opinion I can't handle, it's a content-free post I'm bored of reading over and over.

on your "foes" list and set us at -6 in your preferences.

My foelist is reserved for people who do something really idiotic. That said you're well on your way to earning a place in it.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[m50d]

We all understood what was meant. It's only a mistake if you believe a word always means what it says it does in the dictionary.

"Submitter has made it" doesn't equate to "So many people make it". If anything the slashdot editors seem to pick the dumbest submission they get for any story. To spark the discussion, I suppose.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[hey!]

Not true. I know for a fact that in my town it is sorted.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[FictionPimp]

But see, I do use fire and police services. Indirectly. I pay to make sure someone is there to put out my house when I light it up (kinda like I pay home owners insurance). And I pay to make sure the police keep criminals out of my town (like paying for a guy to keep up your lawn).

The reason I do not support recycling is because I've seen the huge stockpiles of material that is not getting purchased. And if it does get purchased I can find no record as to how much of that money goes back into my town. So I have to guess that no money goes back into the county from the sale of refuse. So if I was inclined to recycle, I would collect material myself and deliver it for the nominal payment I would receive.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[bigpat]

"mommies"? That's great.

You authoritarians are just people that weren't loved by their own mommies and don't believe that God loves them, so you'll do anything the politicians say as long as they say they will love and care for you.

Its a bad relationship, get out now. Seek help. Relationships don't have to be based on controlling others.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[GlassHeart]

But see, I do use fire and police services. Indirectly. I pay to make sure someone is there to put out my house when I light it up

You're missing the point. Consider if many of your neighbors are not as smart enough to realize that you pay for the fire department not because you plan to light your house up, but because accidents happen. Consider if they don't think their houses will catch fire and refuse to pay for a fire department.

What will you do? You are unlikely to be able to afford it by yourself, but you think that "it should be illegal to charge someone for a service they do not use."

The reason I do not support recycling is [...]

As I said, reducing consumption and reusing tend to be more effective methods that people who oppose recycling don't often talk about. Seems to me that if you are opposed only to the inefficiencies of recycling, you'd at least avoid consuming non-renewables, or at least reuse them where you can.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

the problem with parents making a decision about what kind of school is right for their child and then taking their charter-school credit to that school is that they are using public funds. Apart from the very obvious problem this invites regarding church and state, you run into the problem I mentioned, which I notice you have not addressed in the least, of how to justify using public funds in non-transparent, non-publicly accountable institutions. Its patently untennable.

You seem to be under this delusion that parents would somehow be "purchasing" education for their children with only the portion of tax revenues which they were responsible for. Unfortunately, education funding does not work this way. Everybody pays for education our childern, even those of us without children. now I realize that this is a rather obvious and elementary concept, but you seemed to have missed it. It is not an individual pair of parents funds with which to choose an educational institution as they see fit. They are OUR funds, and the per-child cost of an education is significantly more than any one tax-payer contributes. To suggest that any one person somehow has the right to remove those funds from the system to seek alternative forms of education rather than working with the system to ensure that their views are taken into consideration is arrogant, selfish nonsense. It displays a fundamental ignorance about civic life, and a warped sense of "fairness" that merely serves to mask a basic self-centeredness

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[_Sharp'r_]

Please re-read what I actually said. To clarify, I suggest as the ideal situation, private charity to take care of those who can't afford to pay for their own children's education and public tax funds as a last resort to cover poor children who can't afford it and who can't find private charity.

Still, your objection is a bit silly, considering that right this second lots of public funds are used "in non-transparent, non-publicly accountable institutions". Ever heard of the food stamps program? I suppose you object to that program on the same grounds? After all, some poor Muslim, Jewish or Hispanic family might purchase something from an ethnic food store or something labeled "Kosher" that partially funds their religion.

Wow, that would just be "untennable" (sic), wouldn't it?

What is your big objection to parents educating their own children how they see fit instead of how you prefer? Is it really that somehow some of your tax money might go to help fund something you don't agree with? Or is it that they might not pick the same philosophy you would?

When I was the coach for a local high school's Model UN team, during a break I sat in the teacher's lounge listening to the public school teachers discuss various ways to convince their students that the local prevailing political philosophy, held by the majority of the kid's parents, was wrong. They essentially went over various brainwashing techniques they could use to get the kids away from their parent's beliefs. It was a very matter-of-fact discussion, as if they couldn't conceive that any of the other teachers in the room might disagree with them. They lamented and laughed about what the kids had learned from their parents.

Most people in the US right now don't agree with at least part of the philosophy their own children are taught in school with their tax money, let alone someone else's children. What about them?

Somehow I don't see you suggesting a total ban on using tax money for education. Isn't that just a little inconsistent and hypocritical?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

well, yes, of course, we should definitely further stigmatize underprivileged children by making their entire education only possible because of charity. Nothing like making some 6-year old even more head-fucked for life than letting know that he's just that much more different than all the other little kiddies.

You clearly understand neither how the food-stamp program works, nor what kosher means. Not only is it not a workable analogy to compare choosing the type of food you by with govt assistance, you just suggested that the production of kosher foods financially supports an organized religion. Funding a catholic private school would be a violation of the seperation of church and state, and therefore a violtiona of the constitution. buying with federal funds, meats from animals slaughtered in such a way as to avoid contact between flesh and entrails, and thus be kosher, somehow just seems to fall short of the various tests employed in constitutional analysis. Could you be a little more ignorant?

Parental political indoctrination is a pretty big obstacle in a child's path to intellectual growth. It doesnt matter which "side" of "the battle" they're on, it keeps kids from forming their opinions based on their own ideas and way of understanding the world. While I certainly dont agree with teachers using their positions of authority to preach, that is an abuse of power, what you might see as "essentially... various brainwashing techniques they could use to get the kids away from their parents beliefs," could just as easily lead the children to come to share similar beliefs as their parents, but arrive at them through their own means and as better people for it. is that necessarily what would happen? no. Does that make it ok for teachers to abuse their authority? no. but you might want to consider what you yourself brought to that experience, and what lenses you were watching it unfold through.

Total ban on tax money? hypocritical? I'm sorry, you seem to have somehow left out the meat of the argument that would support such a statement. perhaps you would be kind enough to fill me in, cause there seems to have been an omission.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[_Sharp'r_]

"seperation of church and state" is not a phrase contained within the United States Constitution.

Funding a Catholic private school is no more a violation of the Constitution than funding a Catholic homeless shelter or a Catholic children's hospital or providing Federal College tuition aide to a student attending a Catholic College. Or didn't you know all of those occur today?

For tax money that goes to a religious-based organization, the test should be pretty simple. They should be treated in exactly the same way as any other organization in the same situation, no special bonuses or penalties as compared to any other religion, non-religious, anti-religious, secular humanist, atheist or whatever organization is treated. Or is that not fair enough for you?

I have no problem with teachers who want to teach their students how to think critically, and/or how to research and evaluate both sides of an issue. That is a valuable skill that they should actually teach more of.

The problem is that most (not all) of the teacher's that I have seen in a public school environment prefer to teach the students NOT to think critically about things, to avoid points of view that the teacher opposes and emotionally stigmatize and give poor grades to those who don't agree with them. But hey, it's not my money and my kids, right? Oh wait, that's right, it is.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

true, this does not include the phrase "seperation of church and state." It is, however interpreted by the supreme court as barring the government from involving itself in the workings of religious institutions. The Plain Words Doctrine is, to say the least, out of vogue. unless, of course, you think that there's also no right to privacy as the words "right to privacy" do not appear anywhere in the constitution or amendments.

My problem with funding a religios-based organization, when it comes to schools, is the idea of federal funding going to a school where someone might be punished for questioning the existence of god, for failing to wear a yarmulke, or the like. Just in the same way that in a public school, no child may be punished for stating a belief in god, or wearing a yarmulke, or a girl's headscarf.
The recent charter-school proposals in my town included several, both religious and secular, that were explicitly discriminatory, admitting only certain ethnicities or religious faiths. When a catholic college gets federally funded tuition, it must prove that it is pursuing education in a nondiscriminatory, if catholic, way.

Well, actually its not really your money anymore. Its ours, and I get a say in how it gets spent too. Thats what happens when people come together to pursue higher goals. the individual becomes a little blurred. but go ahead, there's nothing less selfish than ensuring that whats yours is yours

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously though, if you've ever attended a public school, ...

Everytime I had to write a check to the local school (for something other than lunches), I always wrote "Free Public Education" in the memo field. They weren't just a few either.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[FictionPimp]

I also have problems with not being able to choose who does my recyling, and that I do not see any of the money this company is making going back into my county. So I'm basically paying 2 garbage companys to collect my waste when all I really need is one. Although the second company only picks up stuff that I have to take time out of my day to sort and then make money off of it. So I dont sort it, I still throw it away and yet they still make money off of me and the city/county gains nothing. Plus the collected recyled items still sit in the same landfill my trash goes to only in a seperate section. So they have solved nothing, but instead a private company found a way to trick a county into charging all of its home owners money for no gain to the county.

Sounds great to me.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[goldspider]

"Well, actually its not really your money anymore. Its ours, and I get a say in how it gets spent too. Thats what happens when people come together to pursue higher goals. the individual becomes a little blurred. but go ahead, there's nothing less selfish than ensuring that whats yours is yours"

I read the entire discussion in this thread, and while it took you long enough, here you finally get to your real beef.

You claim that you don't want public funds to support ideologies with which someone might disagree, but the very nature of public education does exactly that!

Rather, you seem to object more to letting people spend their money how they please. Is your real goal to get your hands on as much of other people's money as you can, and to hell with their objections over how it's spent?

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"You claim that you don't want public funds to support ideologies with which someone might disagree, but the very nature of public education does exactly that!

Rather, you seem to object more to letting people spend their money how they please. Is your real goal to get your hands on as much of other people's money as you can, and to hell with their objections over how it's spent?"

no.
In fact, my whole point is that we should be exceedingly sensitive to everybody's views about HOW it should be spent. What I'm not that concerned about is people saying it SHOULDNT be spent. people who bitch about "my" tax money being spent on this stupid program, but dont REALLY care about the program, they just dont want ot pay taxes.
I dont really want "my" tax money to pay for halliburton rebuilding pipelines in Iraq. I'd much rather it go to a more... equitable company. But what REALLY bothers me about it, is that OUR money is going to halliburton, and my feeling that the process through which WE decided to grant Halliburtun the contract was flawed with cronyism and blatantly dishonest lowball esitmates of the costs of rebuilding the pipelines. It chafes me a little that I am, in roundabout fashion, funding Halliburton, but what really pisses me off is how WE are getting fleeced.

This is a distinction which those with whom I was debating seemed to miss, as have you. I'm not concerned that public funds go to support idealogies with which some might disagree, I'm concerned that public funds being used to support schools that will punish children for not sharing a religious belief, or will not admit them if they are not of a certain ethnic group.

you misunderstand what I have said when you say that I object more to letting people spend their money how they please. I object to the selfish way in which many people approach the question of what should govt do with tax monies. People seem hell bent on considering it "my" money instead of "our" money. People will insist on it being spent in such a way that "I" like instead of a way "we" like.
It is also different from bringing one's own desires to the discussion of what should be done with "our" money. It is asserting from the get-go that it is "my" money, and that the only opinion that matters is "mine." It is necessarily selfish and divisive. Deciding how to allocate tax funds is a fundamental discussion of the res publica. It literally concerns us all. Naturally, the objections of all, particularly those with strong objections, matter when deciding to spend monies a certain way. I merely object to the idea that the individual has a right to decide how "his" money is spent that precludes the public process.

I hope that answers your questions. if not, keep em coming.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[goldspider]

"I'm concerned that public funds being used to support schools that will punish children for not sharing a religious belief, or will not admit them if they are not of a certain ethnic group."

That sounds to me like a good argument in favor of a 100% private school system. Parents can choose what ideology their children are educated within, and no public money is spent on furthering or excluding any particular ideology.

"People seem hell bent on considering it "my" money instead of "our" money."

That's because individuals earn that money, and government takes it. It's not unreasonable for people to get angry over how that money is spent, especially when they feel they could put that money to better use themselves.

Case in point: my state legislators recently voted themselves pay raises ranging from 16 to 34 percent. That, combined with a ridiculous COLA index and lavish benefits, makes Pennsylvania's state legislature the most expensive in the nation. This bill was passed at 2:00 AM with absolutely zero public discussion. Do I (and THOUSANDS around Harrisbug) not have just cause to be angry?

"It is asserting from the get-go that it is "my" money, and that the only opinion that matters is "mine." It is necessarily selfish and divisive."

So here we inevitably get to the heart of the matter: you believe people who want fewer taxes are simply greedy. You seem to subscribe to the notion that the will of the collective should supercede the needs of the individual. Under such a system, the individual has no power, and hence, no liberty. He is always at the mercy of the collective.

I don't know about you, but to me that conflicts with the fundamentals of personal liberty this country was founded upon. At risk of sounding cliched and petty, you genuinely sound like a communist. I don't mean that as an insult, just the impression I'm getting.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"That sounds to me like a good argument in favor of a 100% private school system. Parents can choose what ideology their children are educated within, and no public money is spent on furthering or excluding any particular ideology."

I dont think that govt-funded charter schools is an appropriate middle ground. However, I think that the problem that a 100% private school system is that a rather sizable minority of families in this country could never afford the per-child costs of a private education. The tax savings for lower income families would be so negligable as to be nonexistent. Then we've even further stigmatized the children of lower-income households by making their place at school contingent upon charity contributions.
At the same time, there would still need to be a govt bureacuracy of some kind simply to ensure that all children were receiving schooling of some kind, whether at one school or another. I think that a public system that provides as ideologically neutral education as possible is the best possible system given the situation of our society. The desire of parents to delegate the teaching of "their ideology" is no reason think otherwise.

"That's because individuals earn that money, and government takes it."

Not all income is earned income, if by "earn" you mean garnered through honest toil. Insofar as our government rules with the consent of the governed, it takes only those monies which you give. some might have different ideas concerning the source of governmental authority, and i respect that.

"It's not unreasonable for people to get angry over how that money is spent, especially when they feel they could put that money to better use themselves."

You arent listening. Of course its not unreasonable to get angry over how that money is spent. It is unreasonable to continue to consider it "your" money. The "I could spend it better myself" excuse is a blatant fallacy. Group action of the sort exemplified by govt spending programs fall victim to the Prisoner's Dilemma exceedingly fast. Govt spending programs cover those areas which self-interested individuals WILL have the tendency to overlook, or at least, not pay enough attention to. Ignorance of this relationship is endemic in this country.

"Case in point: my state legislators recently voted themselves pay raises ranging from 16 to 34 percent. That, combined with a ridiculous COLA index and lavish benefits, makes Pennsylvania's state legislature the most expensive in the nation. This bill was passed at 2:00 AM with absolutely zero public discussion. Do I (and THOUSANDS around Harrisbug) not have just cause to be angry?"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is a "mine" vs "Ours" distinction. All of you have the right to be upset, because you're collectively getting screwed. you cannot point to individual dollars and say that that one is mine or yours. The state legislators took "our" money (the ideal "our"... I'm not from PA) and used it in a way that "we" didnt like.

"So here we inevitably get to the heart of the matter:"

indeed

"you believe people who want fewer taxes are simply greedy."

No. please dont put words in my mouth like that. Greed has, actually, little to do with it. I believe that people who bitch about how "their" tax money is spent are SELFISH, not because their bitching, everybody has the right to bitch, but because they conceive of the res publica as being their sole concern. That the way in which govt spending affects them personally is somehow more important than they way it affects all of us together.

"You seem to subscribe to the notion that the will of the collective should supercede the needs of the individual."

You seem to want to ascribe a good deal of imperatives to me. i think that, in certain ways, and only in certain ways, the needs of the collective do supercede the needs of the individual. Taxes are one of them. however, the collective has tried to lessen the impact of this act on those whose mo

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[goldspider]

"Insofar as our government rules with the consent of the governed, it takes only those monies which you give."

An ideal that has long since gone the way of the dodo. Our state legislature here is a perfect example. This debacle might get a few of them booted next year, but that's not going to put the money back into our wallets.

We do not give taxes to the government, it takes them from us.

"Individual right to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,are all, I think, fundamental to the nature and law of our society." ...what about property?

"But of course, Govt is itself comprised of individuals who are themselves self-interested. and so the paradox cointinues."

Which is every reason why government should be entrusted with as little money as possible for it to carry out its minimum essential functions.

Let's face it, people are not going to suddenly stop thinking of themselves (or their families) first in favor of the collective good. It's human nature. It's why every attempt to incorporate Marxism into a form of government has failed miserably.

While capitalism isn't perfect either, it works WITH people's tendencies to think of themselves first, not against it. With few exceptions, the system we have allows people to succeed as much as they are willing to work. It's unfortunate that we're increasingly turning into a welfare (both individual and corporate) state that places a disproportionate labor and tax burden upon the working class.

There is a inverse relationship between the growth of government and the shrinking of the middle class. That alone should tell us we're going in the wrong direction.

Re:Three kinds of Free now.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

ownership of property, is of course on that list. However, I'd not place it first among constitutionally protected freedoms. not because is is lesser than the others, but rather because it has a way of guaranteeing itself, whereas civil liberties seem to need constant protection. again, we might disagree on this point. Um... if government should be trusted with as little money as possible because its made up of self-interested individuals, then what do we say about the populace at large? I realize this is not what you mean to say, but it is... well, what you said. You might want to watch yourself, equating "governance through big government for the collective good" with marxism. Aside from the fact that Marx wanted the concept of "government" to disappear, this is a historically inaccurate statement, as many, many other thinkers in history have advocated such. FIrst and foremost, the person to whom Marx was directly responding with the majority of his writing, Hegel. The statement that Capitalism allows people to succeed as much as they are willing to work is, on its face, bullshit. To say that there are no systematic mechanisms at play in our capitalist market system that prevent the underpriveleged from succeeding financially is pretty damn ignorant. It is a myth of the successful that financial rewards are only visited upon those who have worked hard. It is, however, the degree to which our society values the particular type of work one does, not the degree to which one works hard at it, that determines how successful one is. This is not a problem, obviously doctors should be more highly rewarded than janitors. But we should be careful that everyone with the capability to become a doctor has the option to do so. which brings us back to... The necessity of decent and universally available education, so that those who can do a thing are able to do so. If you think that eliminating public education is the way to achieve this, well, I think you're wrong.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Joseph_V]

Low income families normally get ahold of a second-hand computer for far less that $400, more on the order of $20-50. Pop in a wireless card for $20 and they have the capability to file taxes, read email, download sweet linux images, and browse pr0n with the best of us! (for under $50). That is only 2 months of the cheapest broadband you can get.

Re:free good

[Bimo_Dude]

You are correct! After I read the article and posted, I then proceeded to actually read the summary.

D'oh! *smacks self on forehead* :-)

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Surt]

Low income residents can often get free or near free pcs that are donated. So yes, compared to free, $5 is expensive. It's also not wireless.

Sour Grapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see alot of cynics dissing this proposal, but in SF, it actually could work.

The area is small enough, the populace is affluent and liberal enough to want to stick it to corporate interests, just for the sake of sticking it to them! This proposal will be hard to stop, once it gets going...

Personally, I would like to GET something tangible in return for all the money that I give to the city/county of San Francisco in taxes, parking fines, etc.

Could it be that some slashdotters just don't want to see somebody get something for free that they HAVE to pay throught the nose for?

Insightful?

[xstonedogx]

Where does it say anywhere that the "haves" are at fault? Maybe this is implied by the fact that their tax money will be used to build it. I don't think that implies fault, though.

Is a $400 Dell the only option for low income families? No. Computers are available for much less. I've been the recipient of a free computers, and my income isn't even low.

Is a dial-up connection the equivalent of a broadband wifi connection? No. Broadband is faster and doesn't tie up their phone line - assuming they have a phone line. Broadband provides more opportunity. Ever download a 600 MB linux ISO at 56k? How about a several megabyte PDF for online classes?

Re:Insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous becuase it's not PC, but also it's true.

I work in this field. sometimes.

they have phone lines.

they have cars, despite public transit within 2 blocks of their subsizized apartments or half-price homes (by comparison I have no car, despite public transit within 8 blocks of my apartment)

and what infuriates me the most is that they have cable tv at 60-100/month

make your own judgements. i have.

they don't need subsidies or freebies. they need to decide what their priorities are, and then be left with the consequences of making those decisions.

enough already. this is not a useful kind of charity.

Re:Insightful?

[Skye16]

I would tend to agree with you, but I've seen too many poor parents (my own among them) choose the unecessary (like mass quantities of drugs and alcohol) over the necessary (like clothes). Do you know what it's like to be getting a job at 10 years old just so you don't have to wear clothes from goodwill or handme downs? Have you ever eaten cereal from a sack without milk? I would hazard a guess and say "no".

Without the "haves" subsidizing my food, my housing, my education (both normal K-12 AND college), I never would have broken the cycle. I would have ended up just like them.

Is that a good thing? By some people's estimation, yes, because, while I was being provided for, there were 2 other people (my parents) who were abusing the system. They'd rather cut a kid like me off just to stop the worthless dregs of society than support those dregs and myself.

Frankly, I'm glad they aren't the ones making the rules. Without that help, I probably wouldn't have finished highschool, much less gone through college, or even think about plans for pursuing my masters.

I'll be the first to admit there are problems with welfare, subsidies, or other freebies. But without them, I'd probably be living in a run down trailer with two or three kids, a drug habit, empty 40's strewn all over the floor, a car up on blocks in my front yard and a job moving heavy things. Hooray for that.

Re:Insightful?

[Freexe]

at least you would be getting laid!

yeah, politics

[Anonymous Coward]

since the whole gay-marriage thing didn't quite work out for him, he's doing the 2nd most important thing to SF residents by giving them free access to the internets :rolleyes:

Why the Mayor

[Frastolator]

I just really hate to see the government get involved in more than they should.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[vertinox]

So people can afford a $400 Dell cheapass PC, but can't spring for a $5 a month Internet dialup connection?

Actually, certain organisations in Philadelphia give computers to the poor, but one of the main gripes was that the poor couldn't afford to do anything with them. Still the $5 dial up access is less than the $20 that Philly is going to offer for wireless, but if you take a look at the major ISP prices (Earthlink... AOL...) for dial up that it's about the same cost. Do you think the poor are going to hunt the net and search for a no-named mom and pop ISP that they haven't seen advertising on? They'll be luck to see a Net Zero add.

And personally, I'm all for a city wide Wifi because not only will I keep my Comcast cable connection, but I can afford a wireless connection for only $20 more so I can haul a laptop anywhere in the city and have an internet connection.

Hell if it works right I can haul a computer to Tatooed Mom's On South Street and drink a PBR and post to slashdot... Although that might get dangerous after the 6th one.

MY MISTAKE

[coflow]

I stand corrected, my apologies. What I have read in the past is that based on the median HOME PRICE in SF, a homeowner would have to earn ~160 per year. I realize this was a mistake on my part, and for those of you who seem infinitely offended, I offer my heartiest apologies. I didn't realize I would ruin your day.

Re:MY MISTAKE

[varmittang]

Thanks

You insensitive clod!

Gay Marriage.

[xstonedogx]

The guy who brought gay marriage to San Francisco needs free wifi to get re-elected?

His fate has already been decided one way or the other.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, I forgot that its the fault of the people on the 'have' side of the 'Digital Divide' that the other people can't get online.

Hey, why don't YOU try getting the phone company to run DSL out to your alienware PC in your cardboard box?

I predict that if the housing market goes belly-up, San Francisco (and many other parts of California) are going to start looking like Tokyo: people wake up in the park in the morning, put on their suit, and go to work. They'll be homeless, but not because they're shiftless bums who can't get a job, but because they lost their house when their interest-only mortgage blew up in their face. Hell, it took years of resistance after the dotcom crash to lower the sale price of houses in the silicon valley... "economy" means nothing in real-estate, if you can't get the price you want for the house, they'll just let it sit empty until they can. We'll see that happen again as people prop up home values as long as possible, making sure even the well-off have to pay exorbitant amounts that the economy can't bear, just to get a house.

But hey, it's in the city's best interest to let stupid people destroy the local economy. Freedom and all that.

What is all this going to result in?

[eno2001]

All of these people are putting up free WiFi access with different levels of service. Some only allow web and mail, others are wide open and still others only provide custom content with no access to outside resources. Individually this is all fine and dandy. But, if WiFi is slated to be the "next internet" as a lot of people like to claim that it is, we need a lot more standardization than we have. Not to mention that there are a lot of people who are working very hard to try and stamp out these initiatives because it hurts or could hurt their businesses (telcos, cell phone providers, cable and satellite operators).

It's nice to see the free hotspots popping up here and there, but other than checking mail and looking at some web content, how useful is it? Why isn't there a national or global cooperative that would define the services that hotspots should offer in order to create a truly national or global network that parallels the internet? How do we keep the telcos and their ilk from ruining this? It's not like they're going to die overnight because landlines are still going to be necessary for several reasons, with bandwidth and reliability being the most important.

Keep the free WiFi coming, but really what does it all mean? It's not like this is becoming anything particularly useful yet.

Politeracy

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, no, actually leveraging the critical mass of the city into a more economical and reliable public service isn't the way for a mayor to get reelected. No, that's just politics. Like publishing stories about a candidate's qualifications and record, right in the middle of the election, when everyone is paying attention, trying to decide who to vote for. Sleazy political ploys.

No, reelections are legitimately based only on glowing recommendations from paid actors, speeches from pulpits subsidized with "faith-based initiaves", and strutting flight suits. That's our democracy: demediocracy.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I wonder how this will work if Santorum's prohibition on the "gov't doing things private industry can do" thingie.
All the resistance to this has come from the current broadband providers.
I don't think the only issue is using your PC at home or at starbucks etc, I think that once we blanket the country with wifi- we will see nav and entertainment systems delivered to cars etc. by wifi.
This is why I wouldn't buy sattelite radio stock- I think around the time they reach profitability, the country will be blanketed in wifi, making them irrelevant.
Couldn't the current cell phone infastructure handle nationwide wifi?

Free Wifi

[gkozlyk]

We sure could use Free Wifi up here in Vancouver. If we had that and a Wifi phone using VoIP, then i could drive over my cellphone and save $50 a month too!

Re:Free Wifi

[Richthofen80]

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that you'd be fine unless your phone switched APs... that's the problem with WiFi versus Cellular technologies.. Routing information through different towers is built into Cellular Tech, while it isn't built into IP/Ethernet.

Affordability...

[sterno]

Okay, so are there people who:

1) Can afford a $400 Dell
2) Can't afford Internet access
3) CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO

Re:Affordability...

[NatasRevol]

They're called homeless. SF is full of them.

Re:Affordability...

[Gothmolly]

Homeless people in SF get $300+ a month from the city. All you have to do is show up at City Hall and say that you're homeless.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Low income families normally get ahold of a second-hand computer for far less that $400, more on the order of $20-50.

I agree. Heck, that's what I do. I've bought a couple servers and several desktop computers for about that price, though the monitor was extra. Spare monitors can be had for $20 ea.

Liberal Translation Alert!

[justasecond]

Liberal translation alert! "Right-wing nutjob" = poster has no coherent argument to parent's comment and has resorted to the standard left-wing namecalling playbook.

Re:Liberal Translation Alert!

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

well, lets try this: right-wing nutjob = someone who gives knee-jerk reaction against the mere mention of spending tax-dollars on something for the common good.

We could, I'm sure, get some pretty good examples out of the standard right-wing namecalling playbook, but instead, I think a good quote from our esteemed vice-president. go fuck yourself

Re:Liberal Translation Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

go fuck yourself

I bow before the sheer logical power of your argument.

Re:Liberal Translation Alert!

[Golias]

well, lets try this: right-wing nutjob = someone who gives knee-jerk reaction against the mere mention of spending tax-dollars on something for the common good.

Kindly point out to the place in my original post (the "knee-jerk" one you had such a problem with) where I said spending taxes on the common good was a bad idea.

Can't do it, can you?

Who's the one who had a knee-jerk reaction now?

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[crashclay]

It seems to me that if they can't afford wireless, then odds are they can't afford a pc. So what good is going to do to give them internet access for *free* if they don't have a pc that is wi-fi capable?

Re:How? : In other news....

[flatass]

The city of San Francisco is reportedly looking at using street light technology to light the city street at nights...

Residents are concerned... "How are they going to cover all the street in light with just one streetlight? A flood ligth might work better..."

politics? hah!

[aggieben]

Don't kid yourself. While internet access is the lifeblood of any geek...

geeks are a underwhelming minority of any general population, particularly among the uneducated (and one assumes that the uneducated largely have lower incomes than those who are educated and therefore concludes that low-income residents of a city would have an even smaller proportion of geeks than the city at large).

Far, far more people are interested in how much in taxes they pay each year. Offering free wifi would certainly have an impact on those figures.

How, then, does offering free wifi help him politically (other than for brownie points with an interest group here or there)?

I don't know who the mayor is or what his ideological positions are, and I also don't care. I just thought I'd point out that ./ shouldn't make the mistake of thinking something is far more important than it really is.

Re:politics? hah!

[RexRhino]

San Franscisco is near Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley people sell technology. A big technology contract (hopefully to local technology companies) means big campaign donations (kickbacks) from said companies to the politicians responsible.

It is not a way to get more votes directly, it is a way to get more money, and hence more votes.

The big technology companies win because they get a big overpriced contract, the mayor wins because he get big campaign donations, and hey, low income people win, because everyone knows that poor people are standing around saying to themselves "Damn, if only I had wireless high-bandwidth internet service so I could check the Dow on the way to my buisness luncheon".

Re:politics? hah!

[zoomzit]

Have you been to San Francisco recently? Our streets overflow with priuses (who cares if they cost more, I'm helping the environment!) and electric buses that tout "Zero Emissions," yet are inconvienient, costly and probably cause more harm to the environement via the polluting power plants that power them as compared to regular diesel buses.

San Francisco (and especially it's politics) are all about doing things because it's makes people feel good promoting them. Because it is supposedly for the good of the disadvantaged, everyone (and I mean everyone) will be on board ths proposal.

In SF politics, there is no Republican party. There is really no one who is opposed to more taxes and bigger government on our political scene. I don't like it, but that is the way that our city works.

Re:politics? hah!

[Lord Raze]

Don't kid yourself. While internet access is the lifeblood of any geek, geeks are a underwhelming minority of any general population, particularly among the uneducated [...]

While the personal computer is the lifeblood of any geek, for everyone else...

it's just a tool. A tool that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get through life without knowing how to use.

The same is true of the internet. More and more of the things one needs to do in life are still doable offline, but as more of the services move online their offline equivalents lose traction.

The underclasses need to at least have the opportunity to learn to use it, as a tool, if they want to have any hope of making it, and free wifi is part of that.

For any body who doubts my thesis, next time you call anywhere where you navigate menus via touchtone, try doing nothing... pretend you have a rotary dial or pulse phone. More and more companies and government agencies assume you have a touch tone phone, they throttle back their live voice operators.

The idea that the internet is somehow "optional" is seeming more and more quaint. Maybe it's time we elevated it to the status of "utility".

Re:politics? hah!

[aggieben]

The idea that the internet is somehow "optional" is seeming more and more quaint. Maybe it's time we elevated it to the status of "utility".

I don't disagree with your view on the significance of being networked. That's not really what we're talking about here. My argument was really that it doesn't make sense to accuse the Mayor of trying to get free Wi-Fi for political gain (assuming the normal rules of politics apply --- since this is about San Fransisco, they might not, as one poster pointed out) because it doesn't really gain him anything politically. He won't get more votes for it; the number of people who would be persuaded to vote for him because he made free wi-fi available would be counterbalanced by the people who would be persuaded to not vote for him because he imposed additional cost on them. This is even more true if you view wi-fi as a utility. The mayor would probably not try to impose the cost of a free electricity service on the taxpayers of a city.

There are two remaining possibilities: 1) the mayor is corrupt and is imposing a wi-fi service so that he can take overpriced bids on a contract from a tech company in silicon valley and 2) he really thinks it's a good idea.

I don't buy #1. Most importantly, such a contract wouldn't be very big. It would also be *extremely* competitve because everyone and their dogs know how to set up a wireless network, and that would make it very difficult to get overpriced bids. Also, government bidding processes have lots of restrictions and limitations on them for the express purpose of preventing graft. That doesn't necessarily mean that it can't still happen, but it does impose some diminishing returns on that kind of activity which means a government official would not likely have much incentive to be involved in that kind of thing. Even moreso for the mayor, because he wouldn't be the person responsible for handling the bids which means that he would have to bring other people into the scheme with him which raises the risk factor and lowers the potential reward factor for him which decreases his overall incentive even more.

No, I still think #2; he's not doing it as a cynical ploy for political gain. He really thinks its a good idea.

Re:If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it

[Animats]

important areas (downtown, the haight, the fillmore, noe valley, the castro.)

Nah. The "important areas" are SOMA, the Marina, Pacific Heights, China Basin (the new biotech area), Telegraph Hill/Union Square, and Fisherman's Wharf.

Re:If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it

[NilObject]

...I have a feeling that the people who would benefit most from this are the upper middle class who already have wireless enable commputers.

But those who can afford wireless-enabled computers already have internet connections. So, this benefits... Almost no one!

Well, tourists. Tourists might be able to get something out of this. But we just wardrive anyways.

Free WiFi Trend Continues?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a statement.

There have been more retreats from Free WiFi than advancements lately.

Two problems...

[goldspider]

1. "It would certianly look good on a mayors resume to say that he provided the whole city with internet access, but..."

...it would be patenly false. The mayor isn't giving anything. Taxpayers are.

2. "the people who would benefit most from this are the upper middle class who already have wireless enable commputers. I don't see this doing a lot for those who can't already aford access themsleves."

Hence defeating the original intent of the mayor's generosity.

So what this really comes down to is a taxpayer-funded campaign for the mayor.

Re:free good

[goldspider]

I wonder what the definition of "low cost" becomes when the taxpayer subsidy is included in the cost figures.

Re:If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it

[Jeffrey Baker]

Well, let's see: the police department, the fire department, the DPT, the DPW, MUNI, the libraries, and the schools. All these can cancel their existing expensive proprietary licensed radio other telecommunications service in favor of cheap commericial off-the-shelf technology.

Representative Democracy != Plot

[hypnagogue]

is this just another political plot to get the Mayor re-elected?

Since when is acting on the will of the people as an democratically elected official a "plot"? The mayor is honor bound to execute the will of the people -- that's what representative democracy is. If he doesn't execute the will of the people, his tenure is terminated by popular vote.

That's DEMOCRACY.

Now, as to whether the electorate really ought to resort to taxation to provide broadband access to the masses -- that's a policy matter I leave to the people of the Great State of California.

Re:Representative Democracy != Plot

[cynyr]

ahh yes but here is the problem the USA is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, so thus themayor is not honor boud to the will of th people but to the electoral college the votted him in. granted they are susposted to follow the votes of the people... but that doesn't always happen

I couldn't even get good a cell connection

[fromtheblueline]

in my old Richmond apartment with out havinbg to stand in a corner or go outside. How am I to get a decent WiFi connection?

It's all about economic development

[PCM2]

San Francisco is a city with its fair share of problems. There is lots of economic disparity here. As other people have mentioned, you will not walk a block downtown without getting panhandled. The neighborhood I live in is fairly residential and yet there are still a couple of homeless people that park themselves in front of the local restaurants every evening.

What's more, contrary to popular perception about the Bay Area's liberality, a lot of the larger-scale economic disparity divides along racial lines. Neighborhoods like Bayview and Hunter's Point are predominantly black and in many ways they are almost completely neglected. Those areas were once Naval shipyards and that has been the excuse to lump them under Federal jurisdiction, not that of the City of San Francisco, which means they get passed up for a lot of urban development programs. Not to mention that the shipyards' legacy is a ton of environmental poisons -- Bayview has the highest instance of breast cancer in the Bay Area, if not California.

The only way you are going to start to help the economic underclass of San Francisco get ahead is to get them out of areas like this and into productive roles in society, and the way to do that is to provide them with opportunities. Free Internet access can help to do that. For example, it could make distance learning possible for single mothers and the disabled. It can give the elderly another lifeline to the outside world. It can provide communications facilities for not-for-profit organizations that conduct economic development programs. Hell, even letting kids surf the Web for free is one more thing that will keep them from running down Mission Street in packs, brawling and trading gunshots with each other.

Is there such a thing as a free lunch? No. Should the residents of San Francisco support programs that sound like they could benefit the residents of San Francisco, whether or not they think the mayor is a publicity whore? Sure. Why not?

Take the view as a Technocrat

[vertinox]

"Any government money spent on technology regardless of cost or efficiency is better than it not spending the money on technology." -Me

Why is this? Because Technology is the only thing that makes humanity more than animals than living in caves (well there is the whole language and knowledge thing we have built up of a few thousand years, but this is actually amplified by technology).

The truth of the matter is that Government will spend this money one way or the other. Telling government not to spend money is an oxymoron, because if you happened to ever work for any State or Federal instituion will know right before new budget time that Agencies will scramble to spend all their money because of the fear that if they don't they will not get the same amount allocated to them next year. (Which is why I am glad I work for a private company these days)

Are there better things to spend money on? In the short term yes, like feeding and getting the poor jobs. Saving the environment... Tax money for schools.

But the fact of the matter is that none of these things will save humanity in the long long term. As they say "The main reason the dinosaurs became extinct was because they didn't have a space program." All the advances you see before you are not because of Government spending on social programs, but government spending (and private and corporate innovation) on technology (and military spending). The internet... Transistors... Electricity and electronics... Medicine and all other technologies immediate and long term affect man kind for the better.

Even though municipal wifi projects are really low on the scale compared to government space programs, it's still better than spending on pork barrel and tax breaks for corporations (or whatever short term projects City hall has come up with).

Still... Even if no one uses the technology on the scale as expected we have given another techie a job somewhere and given more profits to a Wifi hardware company (who will hopefully use the profits to better their R&D and reduce the costs for us technophiles in purchasing equipment for our own).

That and if you live in the city you are can always get cheap wifi anywhere you take your laptop in the city.

No, it's ANOTHER failure of American Conservatism

[Anonymous Coward]

The market (as per usual) has totally and utterly failed to provide affordable high speed access for lower income (not necessarily homeless, DUMBASS) people. As more and more services are being provided online, families that cannot afford internet access are increasingly at a disadvantage. Being able to buy a $200 computer with a $10 wireless card is one thing, but affording a $20-40/month access bill indefinitely is something entirely different.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[rocjoe71]

...It's a good point, *IF* they have a phone line.

Dunno about the 'States but in the UK and Canada you can't get a phone line without laying down a hefty deposit, in cases where the line has been disconnected for previous non-payment, or subscriber doesn't have permanent residency in the country.

Politics of Guilt

[Shivetya]

The easiest way to foist an new entitlement on the taxpayers is to guilt them into accepting it.

Its for the children, you wouldn't hurt/deprive/harm children would you?

Its for the poor, you wouldn't hurt/deprive/harm the poor would you?

Its for minorty-group-of-the-moment, you not a racist are you? (notice you must use the term racist as bigot which is the most appropriate definition doesn't cause enough cowering)

Politics of Guilt is how they hide their re-election programs and get people to pay for it. It used to be libraries, pools, and parks. Now its internet access whether through libraries, wi-fi, or hardline.

Next Up: City buys them all laptops

[PhYrE2k2]

That's the worst excuse I've _EVER_ heard. So this is an effort to provide Internet to lower income households? In the age of a $250US workstation and a $1200-$2000US laptop computer, why are hotspots the answer?

If the people can't affort $5-$10USD/mo dialup Internet access for their desktop, how on earth are they going to affort to buy a modern laptop?

(answer may be used hardware, but lets be serious here)

-M

Re:Next Up: City buys them all laptops

[Wile_E_Peyote]

If the people can't affort $5-$10USD/mo dialup Internet access for their desktop, how on earth are they going to affort to buy a modern laptop?

(answer may be used hardware, but lets be serious here)

This has been mentioned in a previous post, but here I go with my version.

I have friends who cannot afford a $250.00 computer (which can be a full weeks paycheck), so they rely on people like me. I always seem to have a PC or 2 laying around (low end machines) with nothing usefull to do. I usually slap these together and give them away. Often they end up using whatever free service I can get them hooked up to, but I'm sure they would appreciate a free service that didn't have pop-ups and ads all over the place.

I think there are probably better things for the government to do with money (health care, housing, etc.) than provide WiFi for everyone, but it's still better than using it to line their own pockets or start a war...

Re:Next Up: City buys them all laptops

[mkv]

That's the worst excuse I've _EVER_ heard. So this is an effort to provide Internet to lower income households? In the age of a $250US workstation and a $1200-$2000US laptop computer, why are hotspots the answer?

If the people can't affort $5-$10USD/mo dialup Internet access for their desktop, how on earth are they going to affort to buy a modern laptop?


Why do you think Wi-Fi Internet access is limited to laptops only? I'm not sure about the situation in the United States but here in Europe we do have Wi-Fi adapters for USB and PCI available for maybe fifty euros (roughly $60).

Re:Next Up: City buys them all laptops

[PhYrE2k2]

The idea of the desktop adapters is to save wiring a small office, home, or places where wires can't go (the toolshed or 'pool house' for example).

Blanketing the city with Wifi- yes I'd agree with you 100%. But setting up city hotpots in public places isn't exactly ideal for a desktop. I can see the giant extension cords now (not to mention the FedEX furniture (article a few days ago)).

-M

Mod parent up, hilarious!

[Smeagel]

nm

Re:If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it

[damiangerous]

Well, let's see: the police department, the fire department,

Yeah, let's move mission critical life or death applications off a proven and working system and on to an unlicensed public spectrum using "best effort" consumer hardware.

Can't connect to some sites on SF "free" wireless.

[RexRhino]

Who wants to bet that in addition to trying to screen "adult" sites (which will 100% be the case, because such screening is required by federal law) and those other sites that inadvertantly are also screened out (safe sex sites, gay rights sites, art sites, etc.), that it will be very difficult to connect to a site that critizes the major, or city government or could "cause potential problems"?

And who wants to bet that every political group with an agenda will also try to get the city to screen out sites that they don't like?

Oh, and what happens when the city wireless network and your wireless network are messing with each other? Thats right, sorry, but your wireless network is a "public nuisance". Shut it down or go to jail!

But free-speech, freedom of choice, and freedom to run your own wireless network is a small price to pay for the illusion of free wireless (you still pay quite a bit for it, you just pay it through taxes or reduced services somewhere lese... but it sure FEELS free). Ahhh! Isn't socialism grand? I am sure this is exactly what Marx had in mind!

Re:If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it

[Jeffrey Baker]

Actually the mobile police data system barely works at all. Hence the need for something to replace it. As far as the fire department, I'm with you. The trucks should keep their radios.

Free Wireless, Free to the Taxpayer

[pashdown]

$10 - $18 MILLION dollars? What are they using? Solid gold antennas?

My company, XMission recently completed a large free wireless project in downtown Salt Lake City. We did this in cooperation with Salt Lake City government but at no cost to the taxpayer. We've also installed free wireless in the city library, two ski resorts, several coffee shops and restaurants. The cost is cheapter than running television or newspaper advertising but for us the exposure is better.

This site has details on how we're able to do reliable and truly free wireless without costing the taxpayer millions.

Re:Free Wireless, Free to the Taxpayer

[slappyjack]

$10 - $18 MILLION dollars? What are they using? Solid gold antennas?

Well, part of it is the hardware and then connecting it all up, but I bet a lot of it is going to be spent on hardening the wireless points against those everyday fools we all know and love that like to destroy shit just to destroy shit.

If its not locked down, people will steal it. If it IS locked down, they'll try to smash it.

This guy's blog is all about free wireless in his area of london and hes mentioned free points outside that barely work becuase damnfools can't resist ripping of an antenna.

So, there you go. Yes, it would be alot cheaper if we didnt have to protect stuff against assholes, but until we're allowed to shoot people dead on the spot for not playing nice and being civil, we have to do things like build armored access points.

Re:Free Wireless, Free to the Taxpayer

[pashdown]

Well, part of it is the hardware and then connecting it all up, but I bet a lot of it is going to be spent on hardening the wireless points against those everyday fools we all know and love that like to destroy shit just to destroy shit.

Our downtown and park installations are outdoors. We did use proper enclosures and positioning for the elements and vandals. It still doesn't cost a lot.

Re:Free Wireless, Free to the Taxpayer

[An Onerous Coward]

Hmm... I may have to rethink my rule about never voting for anyone who posts on Slashdot. Funny that it's never been an issue before now.

I'm curious. If you took the Main Street project, and tried to scale it up to cover the entire city, how much do you figure it would cost? If the cost is low enough, I think I might want to adopt a city block or two. I'm a starving student, though, so it would have to be pretty danged low.

In closing, thank you for XMission. It makes me happy.

Re:free good

[Moofie]

Let's apply the same analysis to the monopoly phone companies, shall we?

The way I see it.

[hackwrench]

I think he means that a person is a "right-wing nutjob" if they think pointing out that "tax funded" and "free" are not exactly the same thing is "insightful" as opposed to something most well informed people aready know. It is a trait of extremists of all walks fo life to think that the reason other people disagree with them is that they lack the "insight" of some bit of trivia or another.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were such common sense, the misleading headline in question would not have happened.

Re:The way I see it.

[m50d]

Come off it, half the time headlines aren't even spelled correctly

Yeah, like those damn FreeWAYS

[FreeUser]

When I saw the headline about the "Free WiFi trend", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free WiFi, like when a private resident or coffee shop opens up their 802.11g encryption so anybody in range is free to use it.

Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory WiFi, in which residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes, whether they have better alternatives available or not.

When I saw the sign "Freeway", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free Ways, like when a private residence or rancher builds a road through their property and opens it up so anyone passing through is free to use it.

Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory Freeways, in which residence of a city (or state) are forced by the state to fund a FreeWay connection with their taxes, whether they have better alternatives available or not.

Now it seems we need three different definitions of "Free":

1. Free as in "speech"
2. Free as in "beer"
3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"

Network infrastructure (as opposed to services like webhosting, etc.) is extremely analogous to the highway system, including the lack of economic growth and monopolism that arises when said infrastructure is privately owned (think of the last mile of copper, and the 98% unused fiber that results from the baby bell's local monopolies, for example). Much of the FCC's efforts are a (failing) effort to mitigate this fundamental problem through regulation. Competative markets only exist, and work, when the underlying infrastructure is publicly owned. If we had privately owned highways, no little startup would even be able to drive to work, much less ship a product (or even receive parts to build their product) using their competitor's highway system.

San Francisco is doing exactly the right thing. There is a place for free market capitalism, and there is a place for public works. The Highway System, and Communications Infrastructure, are two examples of the latter.

Re:Yeah, like those damn FreeWAYS

[hanshotfirst]

If we had privately owned highways, no little startup would even be able to drive to work, much less ship a product (or even receive parts to build their product) using their competitor's highway system.

To support your point, that sounds like the Railroads. The free (as in tax-funded) highway system proved to be a better alternative for passenger transport (no cost at the point of entry), leaving rail almost completely used for mass freight.

Re:Yeah, like those damn FreeWAYS

[falconwolf]

San Francisco is doing exactly the right thing. There is a place for free market capitalism, and there is a place for public works. The Highway System, and Communications Infrastructure, are two examples of the latter.

I don't care if a city, municipality, or county offers wifi as long as the people voted to offer it, don't pay for it with taxes, or prevents anyone else from offering service themself. What I do mind is the government using threat of arms to force someone who doesn't want and won't use said service to pay for it. Said service should be pay as you go. As far as the "Highway System" and "Communications Infrastructure", there's a big difference between them. The Constitution of the USA mandates government to establish Post Offices and Post Roads but says nothing of any other communications infractucture.

Falcon

Re:Yeah, like those damn FreeWAYS

[cpeterso]

Competative markets only exist, and work, when the underlying infrastructure is publicly owned. If we had privately owned highways, no little startup would even be able to drive to work, much less ship a product (or even receive parts to build their product) using their competitor's highway system.

good point. The Internet's growth has been disappointing. When the gub'mint assumes control of the private internet infrastructure, then we'll see some amazing advances in network technology and capacity. And don't forget the increased freedom from surveillance we will receive!

Re:Yeah, like those damn FreeWAYS

[RicktheBrick]

At the time the constitution was written no one could have even imagined any other communications infrastructure. Wi-fi will benefit everyone. It will pay for itself when fully implemented. I am sure it will be used for fire and police protection. It will be used for education. It will also be used for medical protection. It will only be limited by our imagination as to what future services it will provide.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[mcb]

Have you ever gone outside center city/univ city in Philadelphia? There are Net Zero ads plastered EVERYWHERE. Not even official ads or billboards, but posters slathered all over the sides of decrepit buildings. It's almost eery, like a conspiracy about the Army of the NetZero Monkeys.

Anyway, I find it rather strange that the first areas to get free wifi are areas where it doesn't benefit anyone but the rich/middle class (love park, the whole parkway soon?). But then again I can't imagine how free wifi will work in less affluent areas without high buildings. Does anyone really believe that the access points won't get ripped off the lamp posts to be sold?

Quit yer bitchin', rich boy

[2short]

"If you only made $125k a year you'd have a tough time living in SF proper."

Roughly 82% of people living in SF proper have Household incomes lower than 125K. More than half of them have incomes less than 56K.

Just call free WiFi a symbolic act...

[zoomzit]

Why is SF and Silicon valley considered the hotbed of technology in the US? Because the local governments do tech friendly things like this. It all feeds off each other.

1.Government passes tech friendly legislation

2.City is perceived as a tech center

3.More tech companies move to city

4.More high paying jobs for local economy 5.Repeat

("Profit!!!" should be in there somewhere...)

Free WiFi may not do much of anything for SF except improve it's tech reputation and give it a lot of free publicity.

Weird system you guys have.

[falconwolf]

Up here in the liberal capital of the upper mid-west (aka Minneapolis) we pay less if we recycle than if we don't.

Are you sure about that? Guess I can check with my sister, she lives in Minnatonka but owns the apartment I live in Minneapolis near Lake Calhoun.

What is it with recycling here, I've put out stuff for recycling and had it on the curb for two or three weeks before it was picked up.

Falcon

Re: Weird system you guys have.

[Golias]

At my home in Bloomington, the recycling goes into a larger bin, and is picked up every other week.

I favor this move as a cost-cutting measure, even though it's sometimes easy to forget which week they pick it up, because most of the recycle stuff doesn't stink up the neighborhood if it sits out in the bin for an extra week. It's not like it's full of rotting kitchen trash.

Re: Weird system you guys have.

[falconwolf]

At my home in Bloomington, the recycling goes into a larger bin, and is picked up every other week.

I favor this move as a cost-cutting measure, even though it's sometimes easy to forget which week they pick it up, because most of the recycle stuff doesn't stink up the neighborhood if it sits out in the bin for an extra week. It's not like it's full of rotting kitchen trash.

This must be new as recycles were picked up every week last year, and earlier this year. It's only been since May or so that they haven't picked up every week. Maybe that's why they dropped off another bin, I thought it was for something else because though it's the same size as the old one it has a cover whereas the old one doesn't.

Falcon

Re: Weird system you guys have.

[Golias]

Yep. It's new. It's also the reason for the new bin.

Ann Arbor also on target for WiFi

[sellers]

Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) is looking to do wireless county wide. (http://wireless.ewashtenaw.org./ Their model uses the government as only the facilitator of the service, and asks that vendors come in to provide end users services and options. This is a good model because it allows for competition, instead of government wireless w/o competition. This way - you can get wireless countywide, but are not stuck with whoever's CEO sold the 'cheapest' solution.....

Here's how...

[kajoob]

How, then, does offering free wifi help him politically?

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

                --Alexis De Toqueville

Problems

[scronline]

There's several issues I see here. As an ISP already servicing the SF bay area, I have problems with San Francisco going "into business" for its self. The state and local governments tax the crap out of us on everything from equipment to sales, then they come up with their own service that can be made cheaper because they don't have to tax themselves....that's anticompetitive behavior at it's finest. Not to mention a monopoly. Let's not forget they dont' exactly handle "other" things smoothly and in the state of CA, we're friggin in debt up to our eyeballs. Starting an 8 figure "luxury" project isn't exactly the smartest thing to do right now.

The ONLY way to make it cheaper than what people like myself are charging is subsidizing it with tax dollars. So, not only are they taxing the crap out of companies to supply Internet access such as myself, they are going to use those tax dollars to take business away from us.....

Either rate, the cost will probably be too high so it's just BS posturing. 47.5 square miles with all the hills and everything present in SF....gonna cost waaaaaaaay to much to get everywhere he wants to get. Either that or it's going to be sub standard and not worth what they want.

Do the airport and BART first

[sfgoth]

Forget the whole city... Put free WiFi on the mass transit first. Start with the SFO airport. Set it up like Columbus, Ohio did for CMH. Then do BART, CalTrain, and Muni. Get all those working, and THEN do the whole City.

Is giving the people what they need politics?

[Univac_1004]

That's what we hire those guys for...

It's the representative bargain: do the right stuff, you get re-elected.

Even proposing it is a step in the right direction.

Too much shallow cynicism in that post....

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Freexe]

Do you not have squatters rights in your country?

They kick arse and stop people having to live on the streets when housing is plentiful but not affordable, hell its not unknown for people to claim houses worth million in England (if you squat a house for 12 years you can claim it as your own) and even an island!

Re:Can't connect to some sites on SF "free" wirele

[zoomzit]

Although your points may be valid for most municipalities, it is way off with SF.

First off, SF isn't much into regulating public discourse/ nudity. Take the follow for example:

Gay (usually naked)Pride Parade

Usually Naked Castro Halloween

Bay to Breakers: Run (naked) across the City!

Folsom Street Fair: Get you S&M right here. We got everything and we are not afraid to use it... In public!

Second, even if there is federal and state laws on screening out certain content, San Francisco isn't one to follow them (see: Medical Pot, Gay Marriage).

And finally, Gavin (the mayor) is a now a single man. He wants his free p0rn as much as the next guy...

Why take it out of taxes?

[Liquid-Gecka]

Why does a city need to provide WiFi access? Why the push? In Salt Lake City a company called Xmission (I do not work for themnor use there service, though I would if I didn't alread use the University of Utah for both) has provided free WiFi access across the entire downtown area. They contact buisnesses and set it all up free of charge. There motive? Get the Xmission name all over the place by having buisnesses put up "Free WiFi provided by Xmission" signs.

says who?

[toiletmonster]

what makes you think low income families have $20 pc's?

the point is its not free just gov gives it away

[toiletmonster]

you missed the point. the point is its not free just because the governemnt gives it away.

Re:the point is its not free just gov gives it awa

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

no, you merely missed my point.
it isnt not free just because we contributed the taxes that paid for the government giving it away.

I simply disagree with the conservative zinger "well its not free becaue you have to pay taxes, HA"

obviously, if its a government program, its funded wiht tax revenues. Only a retard would assume that TFA was referring to free (beer) wifi access.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... "low-income" living WITHIN the most expensive city in the US, running around with wireless enabled laptops... hmm.
Come to think of it, I guess if I grabbed my laptop and moved to San Fran, I would immediately be "low income".

yeah i'm redundandt

[toiletmonster]

.
.
.

Senator Ashdown...

[version5]

In the interests of fostering greater bipartisanship and co-operation, I think the time has come for the Senate to create official chill-out zones with trippy light shows, downtempo beats and massage circles, especially for those extended debates that last all night and even early morning, when the risk of becoming overheated and dehydrated is very high.

I have many other ideas that I think you are best qualified to spearhead in the Senate, such as reforming the electoral system by converting voter ballots to flyers with psychedelic graphics. What do you think? Seriously, that would be awesome.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[d34thm0nk3y]

So people can afford a $400 Dell cheapass PC, but can't spring for a $5 a month Internet dialup connection?

You can find computers capable of connecting to the internet for $25-$50 at any re-pc or used shop. So yes, a one time payment of $25 is better than a recurring payment of $5.

Re:If its going to be done, SF is the one to do it

[sg3000]

> I have a feeling that the people who would benefit most from this
> are the upper middle class who already have wireless enable
> commputers.

San Francisco has the Moscone Convention Center, which hosts many conventions and events each year. And with conventions come visitors who go all over the city. Having freely available WiFi could be useful there because visitors could get Internet wherever they go. Want to have an ad hoc meeting in a cafe downtown? You can count on WiFi being there. If you want to set up an Internet-enabled kiosk outside the convention center, you can do it.

Compared to the other big convention cities (Chicago, Las Vegas, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc), this could be very useful in drawing more events, particularly technology events.

last i heard in Philly......

[johnpaul191]

there is still a lot of chaos with this. there are a bunch of city sponsored hot spots around town (Convention Center, Reading Terminal Market, LOVE Park etc). beyond that it is a mess. there were some lawsuits floated about the government stifling businesses and how unfair that is.

last i heard it went from free to super low cost for most people and free for people that somehow are defined as needing it for free (beats me how that's going to happen). if it is not truly free then in theory it will not exist for tourists or other visitors.

granted it's all up in the air while some companies fight so they can sell the service and others fight over who gets the contract to make it happen.

Re:the point is its not free just gov gives it awa

[Golias]

Only a retard would assume that TFA was referring to free (beer) wifi access.

Except that free (beer) access does exist, and some of us would like to see it expand. Municipal WiFi programs would kill such a movement in the cradle.

$15 DSL

[guacamole]

Given that one can get $15/month SBC ADSL service in the area, I am not really sure what's the justification for this project as far as removing the "digital divide" goes. Someone who spent a $500 on a PC can probably afford $15/month and it's gonna work a lot better than wireless. I think the city is simply wasting money here.

Re:No, it's ANOTHER failure of American Conservati

[guacamole]

surely, these people somehow afford to eat and pay for rent in some area of SF but they can't pay $15/month for basic ADSL or $10 or so for dial-up? Come on? How many people are in position of having a $200 PC and not being able to afford for internet access? They can also use a public library.

Tangible (not political) benefits for gov't

[dnquark137]

The grand vision behind such projects is to make flexible information channels into a public utility. Now, how could the city use this infrastructure? Well, it would simplify monitoring various aspects of the city operation, e.g. expired parking meters, traffic, air quality, etc. It would likely reduce the installation costs of police cameras in sketchy neighborhoods, red-light cameras, and so forth. I'm not usually the one to wear tinfoil hats, but I think we'll see ubiquitous sensor networks in the future, and they will likely have some big-brother-ish uses to them. Free WiFi could be the first step to creating them.

Re:the point is its not free just gov gives it awa

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"Except that free (beer) access does exist"

where? how is this service being provided for free?
as long as we're being sticklers about what is free, I dont really consider free wifi for customers at coffee shops and the like free. you're paying for coffee, and some small percentage of all the costs of running the shop, one of which is the wifi.
I'm not trying to be a did, actually, I just dont know what you are referring to.

It is too slow, yes

[TheInternet]

NetZero already offers free internet access.

Isn't NetZero $9.95/mo in most cases?

Is that access not deemed sufficient or fast enough by the city?

I don't think it's fast enough, no. Perhaps 5-10 years ago it was. My mom had dialup until very recently and practically stopped using it because she'd have to do other things around the house while waiting for a page to load.

Not to mention when you want to download something from iTunes or a software update.

        - Scott

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[blastard]

$5 dialup also requires a phone line, and is still miserably slow. Many low income people have difficulties with the phone companies for various reasons making it difficult, if not impossible for them to get a phone line. I had a friend who could not get a phone line through Verizon because of charges made by a former room mate after he moved out. It is worth seeing how much this will cost, and what the expected return will be. Remember, there will be many intangibles in this.

Re:low-income residents easier access to the Inter

[Popcorn Dave]

Actually when this was first proposed about a year ago they were talking about giving laptops to the homeless. I can just imagine all the people living under the freeways logging in to Amazon to buy the latest Harry Potter book...

It's all politics, there's no question. And if anybody thinks for one minute it would actually happen in San Francisco, I've got a bridge to sell you. About the time that someone suggests they put filters in to prevent "the children" from being able to get free Wi-Fi porn, the whole proposal is dead in the water.

peer review!

[matt me]

Clearly if kids are surfing pr0n sitting on a wall, any passing adult will be able to shout "that pr0ns too old for you, kiddo" to their embarassment.