Slashdot Mirror


New Orleans to Deploy Free Wi-Fi City Wide

Lawrence_Bird writes "The Washington Post is reporting that New Orleans will deploy a city wide wi-fi network with free public access. Much of the equipment has been donated, but New Orleans will own and operate the network. Interestingly, they are only able to do this while a state of emergency remains in place as technically their planned 512Kbps service violates state law prohibiting municipalities from offering access at speeds in excess of 144Kbps, a restriction the city plans on fighting even though they will eventually outsource the whole operation."

363 comments

  1. Why Does State Of Emergency Last So Long? by fembots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will this be the first case of never-ending SOE similar to the never-ending Beta?

    This way consumers get to use the service first, and companies get to roll out their services without having to abide strict regulations and/or an actual committment.

    1. Re:Why Does State Of Emergency Last So Long? by g0at · · Score: 0, Troll

      Will this be the first case of never-ending SOE similar to the never-ending Beta?

      A more apt comparison would be the never-ending "war on terror" or the never-ending "war on drugs". Silly Americans.

      -b

  2. Hmmmm...... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Free WiFi while significant portions of their population are still displaced and / or homeless.

    Perhaps their priorities are a bit backward?

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps they're capable of working on multiple things in parallel?

    2. Re:Hmmmm...... by Fenresulven · · Score: 1

      Ohh I don't know, personally I consider web access to be just slightly less important than electricity and I'm willing to bet that getting decent web access installed, regardless of it being cable, ADSL or something else, is next to impossible in New Orleans at the moment.

    3. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Perhaps their priorities are a bit backward?"

      Well, for the majority of us...it is a circular hell to rebuild. We want to rebuild homes..but, have to wait till FEMA sets new flood plain standards...have to see if you have to raise your house or no insurance. And we're waiting to see if we can get long term commitment to rebuild the levee system...to withstand CAT 5 storms...without that, not much use in rebuilding.

      Funny...the politicos couldn't fall over each other fast enough for 9/11...but, sure don't seem to be too excited to help us down here.

      Frankly, if we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years...we could easily take care of ourselves and build a system that would make Holland blush. It is money that is ours, and should be ours...but, we can't seem to get it out of congress.

      Sorry...easy to get carried away on the soapbox...it is so frustrating down here...a total clusterfuck doesn't even come close to describing it...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Hmmmm...... by bigtrike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Free WiFi while significant portions of their population are still displaced and / or homeless.

      According to TFA, this will provide a huge time savings for inspectors and police. The WiFi is directly improving rebuilding efforts in a number of ways. It's likely much easier and cheaper to provide free wireless for it all than it is to set up a security mechanism to give access only to government officials.

      Perhaps their priorities are thought out well?

    5. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pff, the vast majority of "their population" aren't even in New Orleans anymore. If they want them back, they're going to have to do better than Bush's "below prevailing wages" to get them back. People have houses to repair and rebuild, doing so will require the return of real employers paying real wages, who will require the return of real infrastructure, which will require the return of people to build it. Someone's gotta break the loop somewhere, and since the federal government seems hellbent on fucking things up even worse when they're there as if to prove that things were better off when they weren't, it's down to local government to say "screw the system, we're doing this our way".

      It is a shame that they picked socialist internet access, instead of something more likely to be useful like socialist housing, but you've gotta start small, and I'm sure that whatever company donated all that equipment is getting a nice tax writeoff and is first in line to get paid running the thing if NO manages to get it legitimized.

    6. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      to withstand CAT 5 storms

      With the wireless tech you could alleviate the need to run Cat5. And what do you mean by storms - does it tangle and you get mad?

    7. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You'll be better off as soon as you give up the pipe dream of Federal support. Why should I have to pay for all the idiots who build their houses below sea level?

    8. Re:Hmmmm...... by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Free wireless internet access gives enormous bang for the buck compared to housing, and it will be a draw for business and residents. If I was considering moving there, free internet would be about the same draw as lowering the house price by $5,000 to $10,000. Giving a $5,000 per house subsidy will be far more expensive than laying out an inexpensive but very usefull wireless system.

    9. Re:Hmmmm...... by theRiallatar · · Score: 1

      I would mod this down if I had points. You're just as bad as Pat Robertson.

    10. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god I wish I could mod you -5 retarded

      when half your city is still running off generators while they begin cleanup and restoration wifi will be a godsend

      your comment is borderline racist, all those ******s need is a shack and some food and then we done our job uh hunh

    11. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, you are 100% right. This whole NOLA affair with Katrina makes me sick. Criminals working for FEMA, guns being confiscated from law-abiding citizenry so they are left defenseless against marauding gangs... and now they are to get Wi-Fi. In the Houston TX area you cannot find workers to do contruction or installation work - they're all in NOLA making big $$$ while the sun shines. Its a waste of tax money fixing it up. Fence it off and move on. Are we stupid enough to do this all over again next year, and the year after? Are we purposely teasing nature to send us a bigger storm and finish the job?
      Backwards priorities? These guys make Bukina Faso look like a 1st World model of democracy!

    12. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      We want to rebuild homes..but, have to wait till FEMA sets new flood plain standards...have to see if you have to raise your house or no insurance.

      Do you know why you have to wait for FEMA? Because the government is the only organization stupid enough to offer flood insurance. No private company in the US offers "flood insurance". And, if the government did as it should, and got out of the flood insurance business, then my tax dollars would not be wasted on rebuilding your house in an obvious flood zone. You could just move to, you know, higher ground, and start rebuilding right away.

      Sorry if this appears to be a flame...but it is the truth.

      If we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years.

      Well, for one example, Alaskan oil is actually located within the physical boundaries of the State of Alaska. Last time I looked at a map, the Gulf of Mexico was outside of Louisiana/Mississippi territorial borders. So, I disagree, you don't deserver a penny in royalties--since you don't "own" the oil. For that matter, the State of Alaska shouldn't be profiting (because State Government's also don't own oil), but that is another question.

    13. Re:Hmmmm...... by zulux · · Score: 0

      I would mod this down if I had points. You're just as bad as Pat Robertson.

      I'm stil correct, even if my observations are unpleasent.

      Sometimes the truth is painfull - New Orleans was a great party town, but not a great civilized city.

      Oh, and your Ad Hominum attack is considered childish by a lot of people. It's considered childish name calling. But whatever....

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    14. Re:Hmmmm...... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "They'd rather party and have a good time than build decent levies."
      thats the feds fault. Bush CUT THEIR FUNDING.
      You want to blame levies failure? well it goes to Bush. -- note the period.

      "They'd rather collect welfare than get out and work."

      those 'parties' create a lot of jobs. I would also like to point out that not getting their share of the oil money that all other states has had a huge determental effect on the economy.

      Please retunr to your mormon sponsered klan rally. and please, while your wearing your sheets, stand very close to the burning cross.

      "They'd rather have children out of wedlock, than get merried. ...New Orleans was a party town and they paid the price."
      wedlock is just a piece of paper, no more, no less. It is a convention born from land ownership and the treating women as cattle.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Hmmmm...... by ThaFooz · · Score: 1

      Free WiFi while significant portions of their population are still displaced and / or homeless. Perhaps their priorities are a bit backward?

      I don't think so... the interent isn't just for HalfLife2 you know ;)

      The communication infrastructure is a major priority in any large reconstruction, as improved communication makes rescue/rebuilding efforts easier and is a requirement for drawing residents and buisness back. With power/internet still spotty around the city, I would think tossing up access points where you can would be a quicker and cheaper solution than fixing all wired connections. Just like I wouldn't be suprised or upset if a few cell phone towers are repaired before all of the ground lines.

    16. Re:Hmmmm...... by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1

      my tax dollars would not be wasted on rebuilding your house in an obvious flood zone. This is superb logic. I think cities on dangerous ground should receive no help from the federal government. Our economy will function just fine without cities like New Orleans (floods) ... Los Angeles, San Francisco and Silicon Valley (earthquakes) ... Boston (hurricanes as in 1938) ... Miami (hurricanes) ... Houston (tornadoes) ... We'd be better off without these slacker cities!

    17. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Why should I have to pay for all the idiots who build their houses below sea level?"

      Well, is this the United States? And, while I can sympathize with your sentiments regarding say....someone right now, building a new home right on the beach somewhere along the coast. New Orleans is not a place built recently below sea level as a lark. The place is close to having it Tri-Centenial...there are parts of the city that are older that the United States. For history alone, it is worth keeping. San Francisco and LA are built on a major fault line, and have lots of fires...did we not want to rebuild them after the last earthquake or wildfire?

      New Orleans is where it is for reasons..it is THE major port city at the end of the MS river...do you realized how much comes into the US from our ports? Do you realize how much trouble the mid-west will have shipping out their products without us? You enjoy seafood? About 1/3 of it comes from those of us living down here.

      If historic and normal economic activity aren't enough for you...how did you enjoy those gasoline prices after the storm? Guess what...we're also important as far as crude oil deliveries are made here....we drill for oil and gas off and on our coast (much of the wetland protections against hurricanes was sacrifice for energy harvesting)...and we have a majority of the refineries down here. No one else seems to want them in their 'back yard'.

      It can get mighty cold up north without fuel oil from us along the gulf coast my friend. We put up with a lot of shit, and have for decades. The US gets a lot from us down here...economically and culturally. (Jazz, blues, food). And we get hit and hit badly. We ask for help now...and you turn your back on us? Why are we less important than other parts of the US? I'll bet NYC is still a terrorist target...but, we don't question rebuilding destroyed parts of that city do we? By the way..NYC has a doomsday hurricane/flood scenario too...should we just forget them when that hits? What about cities in tornado alley? Do we just abandon them too...and already mentioned our earthquake inclined friends.

      So really....it isn't like we're asking for a hand out...and our city and people aren't any less valuable than others...for historic reasons alone, the country should be interested in preserving this area.

      But, certainly...don't accuse us of just being stupid, and recently deciding "Hey..lets go build a city near the gulf below sea level...and while we're at it..lets dig shipping lanes and do everything we can to errode our coasts..."

      We're just as important as any other city in this country dammit....why the apathy shown towards us in our time of need...that wasn't shown to NYC when a couple of planes hit the towers. The devestation that left the city is NOTHING compared to what hit not only NOLA, but, the entire Gulf Coast.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:Hmmmm...... by zulux · · Score: 1

      Learn to act civilised and we'll talk.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    19. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      What we want..is what other states get royalty wise when oil/gas are extracted from federal lands or fed. waters like other states do. They do get 40% or so of tax revenues that are paid to the feds for all the strain it puts on the state in question. LA doesn't get the same consideration that other states do. If the current scheme was just made equal for us as it is for other states...then we could easily afford to rebuild and erect a proper levee and flood gate system.

      We're just asking for what other states get...is that not fair?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:Hmmmm...... by zulux · · Score: 1

      Perhaps their priorities are a bit backward?

      Nothing new...

      New Orleans spent more effort at having fun they did at building levies.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    21. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      You appear to misunderstand me. It is easy to get private insurance on wind damage (Hurricanes and tornadoes). And, although I am not sure about this, I believe it is possible to get private insurance on earthquake damage. If you can get private homeowners insurance, and you are willing to pay the ever-increasing rates in places like Florida for Hurricane insurance, then go ahead and live wherever you want.

      You cannot, however, get flood insurance from a private company. You can only get flood insurance from the Federal Government. Remember, the vast majority of the damage in New Orleans came from flooding, not wind. What I am asking is why should my tax dollars pay for someone to build a home in a 100-year flood zone (note that it is called a 100-year flood zone for a reason). Even more crazy, why should my tax dollars be use to build a home on a piece of land that is below sea level?

    22. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen, and amen.

    23. Re:Hmmmm...... by ahknight · · Score: 1
      As a resident of disaster-free Austin, I agree.

      Can we get Oklahoma declared a disaster area somehow?

      /kidding

    24. Re:Hmmmm...... by ThaFooz · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years...we could easily take care of ourselves and build a system that would make Holland blush. It is money that is ours, and should be ours...but, we can't seem to get it out of congress.

      Um, the oil/gas isn't mined in your state, or in your waters. Regardless, if Army Corps. of Engineers money combined with having a monopoloy on the delta of the largest river in the nation and being a tourist mecca is insufficent pay for the required protections, the city/state is horribly managed and/or isn't worth the cost of maintaining.

      I don't want you to think I'm insensitive of the human suffering or anything, but its massivley frustrating to be in states that plan ahead and pay for enormous projects largely out of their own pockets* while watching Louisania for 50 years decimate its coast, put all its money into tourist attractions instead of levees, tolerate political corruption, fail to plan for emergencies, let all of its industry move to Huston, then to claim the issue wasn't enough federal help when the inviteable happens.

      * Massachusetts with the Big Dig & Cali with eathquake-proofing the Bridges & buildings. Both of whom happen to recieve far less in federal benifits than they pay into the federal system, unlike most of the south.

    25. Re:Hmmmm...... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      They mine for oil & gas in the Gulf? Damn..that must be a messy job.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    26. Re:Hmmmm...... by ahknight · · Score: 1

      You cannot, however, get flood insurance from a private company.

      Bullshit, I have it on my tenant's insurance from Nationwide. You may not be able to get it in flood-prone areas, but you can get it in Texas for a penny or three. Being on the first floor at the bottom of a hill two streets away from a river, I made sure I had it.

    27. Re:Hmmmm...... by zulux · · Score: 1

      why the apathy shown towards us in our time of need...

      Here's my reason for my apathy.

      Jelousy.

      Simple jelousy.

      I'm a hard worker: I work hard so my kids have a bright future, and I hardly ever get to "play."

      New Orlease epitimises the "feel-good" short-term fun seeking person that's I've alway been jelous of in a way: They got to drink, screw and be merry.

      I've never done these things to such a degree.

      The old puritin in by blood is jelous.

      Add to the fact that 10% of my income goes to people that behave like this 24 hour a day and that adds another layer or resentment. I get to pay for other people to have a good time.

      You asked for why the apathy.. there are my honest reasons.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    28. Re:Hmmmm...... by Greg_D · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of New Orleans has power, cable, internet, etc., and power is not the government's responsibility in the first place, it's Entergy's responsibility and they're working about as fast as can be expected given the conditions.

    29. Re:Hmmmm...... by Inebrius · · Score: 1
      Frankly, if we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years...we could easily take care of ourselves and build a system that would make Holland blush. It is money that is ours, and should be ours...but, we can't seem to get it out of congress

      While I feel for the people that have lost their homes, I don't understand why people feel justified in robbing and looting others to pay for their misfortune. You state the it is YOUR money. Mineral rights are bought and sold like any other property. Retroactively changing the terms would be akin to theft by beauracracy. The whole FEMA thing is another issue...they should either set the standards ASAP, or better yet, get out of the insurance business and let private institutions set their own standards. I had to trim a tree back to be compliant with my homeowners insurance policy. It only makes sense that private insurance companies would charge more for greater risks, but would also pass the savings on to those that build with lower risk of catostrophic loss.

    30. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      First of all, "tenant's" insurance is not the same as homeowner's insurance. It sounds like you are a renter, not an owner. There is a HUGE difference between "homeowner insurance" and "renter insurance".

      Second of all, check this FEMA site out. The first paragraph clearly states "Flood losses aren't covered by your homeowners insurance policy."

    31. Re:Hmmmm...... by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 0, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly. It's like brining laptops to the third world when what they need is doctors and medicine.

    32. Re:Hmmmm...... by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      Free WiFi while significant portions of their population are still displaced and / or homeless.

      Perhaps their priorities are a bit backward?

      If the only goal is economic development, then yes, this is kind of a waste of money. Yes, if all the major stuff is taken care of, people would enjoy a perk like this, but it should be way down on the to-do list.

      On the other hand, if you view this as a tool that can help in the reconstruction process, then it could be immensely valuable. A month or so ago, I read in the newspaper that there was a lot of contract work clearing debris and doing construction and repair getting businesses open again, and that all these people looking for jobs and looking to hire people were doing it all over CB radio.

      The point being, it seems like in a chaotic situation like this, web sites and other internet services could be an awesome tool to let people coordinate and communicate about things. Job boards, discussion boards for people dealing with common issues, ordering stuff online from Home Depot, etc. craigslist.com and nola.com are already playing that role, as are many others. With wireless access, anyone who is part of the reconstruction effort can get a laptop and a car charger and access all this stuff from large parts of the city. That seems valuable.

    33. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how far off shore are the oil platforms in question. I can't remember details on the international law of the sea, but I thought international waters started when you reached 20 miles off-shore. If the oil platforms are more than 20 miles off shore (or whatever the distance is), then the drilling is probably occuring in international waters (I believe the Gulf of Mexico is considered "International Waters", since the various Latin American and Carribbean countries surround the Gulf). If the drilling is occurring in international waters, you are probably SOW.

    34. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You don't deserve a penny of royalties.."

      Well, then, lets stop paying it to other states for drilling off their coasts or interior of their state. Other states get the 40%+ share of tax 'royalties' from drilling that takes place 12-15 miles off their shoreline.

      With all that drilling...well, the state puts up a lot of infrastructure to support that. Pipelines...roads...etc. Not to mention that much of this drilling is exactly what helped errode the coast line of LA...that was a natural barrier to hurricane damage. Our participation in energy generation is what helped cause this catastropy in the first place. Funny, eh? We give to the countries energy needs...we sacrifice our health..and all we want is a cut off the money to help with the damage it in itself is partially responsible for? I sure don't hear other states clamouring for refineries to be built on their lands.

      And you say rebuild. Just exactly how and where do you move and rebuild an approximately 300 year old city? Like my othe post...the city is here for a reason...it is a port city, that a LOT of traffic to/from the US goes through. It is an important place for energy reserves, and seafood. Hard to catch gulf shrimp from inland places such as Shreveport, eh?

      We have GIVEN to the country...often at time as a sacrifice to our environment and health...and you don't think you can give any of 'your' tax dollars (we pay them into the system too) to us when we need help?

      Why can't we take a look at what they had to do for the Netherlands? They have a major port city, much further below sea level...and they've built protection for it. Is that too much to ask for New Orleans and other places in the gulf...sure we are in a dangerous area...but, we're here for reasons other than just because 'we felt like it'. We're down here for economic reason that are important to the rest of the country.

      If we were to turn off the oil pipeline 'spigot' that we're holding...I think you and others would get a clue real fast why it is important for us to be rebuilt.

      But, I'd hope it is because you're a US citizen...that thinks my city and state are just as important as yours. Eveywhere has its dangers of nature....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:Hmmmm...... by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      That is pretty interesting rant as Louisiana, along with several other SE states, have taken back FAR MORE from the government than average.

      In fact, LA got back $1.47 for every $1.00 of federal tax they paid.

      You are now arguing that we are not giving LA enough?

      WTF? Perhaps you need to start blaming the decades of corrupt administrations (that YOU the Louisianians VOTED FOR) that wasted all the federal dollars that you got.

      I mean, I feel bad as anyone about NO, but what the heck did they expect when you build below sea level? And now you want rest of us to pay billions and billions in dike system with no possibility of getting that money back?

      At least with California, even though the earthquake risks exists, the economic output of that state justifies the risks. LA needs to go a LONG LONG ways before their economics justify spending BILLIONS on public project like this.

    36. Re:Hmmmm...... by vought · · Score: 1

      New Orleans spent more effort at having fun they did at building levies.


      As a former resident, I can assure you that the city's "party" reputation came about largely from out-of-towners who visited once or twice for Mardi Gras, or who came to town after 1984 fora convention and got drunk in the French Quarter. Most people in New Orleans and its suburbs are hardworking middle and lower middle class people with kids. They don't have time or inclination to "party" in deference to building levees.

      In short, most of the people who "party" in New Orleans are from out of town or in college - and there are large populations of both demographics in New Orleans at all times. The Crescent City was once one of the top five convention cities in the nation; thank the1984 World's fair and its exhibit halls for that. There are also several mid-to-large sized schools in New Orleans; UNO, Xavier, Loyola, Tulane, Southern, LSU Health Sciences Center, Notre Dame....

      I'm tempted to call you nasty names, but it's obvious you're just trolling, relying on bullshit you heard somewhere to malign a city you know nothing about. Maybe you don't like the south. Maybe you don't like blacks, who have born the service side of the city's economy for over two hundred years. Maybe you just like to make uninformed comments on Slashdot, but they shouldn't go unaunswered by those of us who know better.

      If anything, endemic corruption caused by a centuries old power structure in the city were more responsible for the under-specced and under-built levees that failed. No one double-checked the contractor's work; instead of the 16 foot bsl concrete t-wall that the Army Corps specced, a 10 foot bsl steel curtain wall was built instead. Was the contractor responsible dancing around on the levee with a go-cup or something that I don't know about?

      Oh, and you misspelled levee. Big clue that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

    37. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, NOLA is celebrating a Tri-Centenniel, very exciting, etc. etc. (disclosure: I went to New Orleans in 2003, and regret not being able to go back).

      Now you tell me this: the parts of New Orleans that are so old and historic and ancient... how much flood damage did they receive, precisely? How much of this "old historic New Orleans" that wasn't built since the 1920s and has endured numerous heavy hurricanes in the past was destroyed by Katrina?

      What? None of it? How is that possible? Lets face it, there are two New Orleans. There was the French Quarter and the Mardi Gras parade route, and the whole south-west tourist mecca. And then there was north New Orleans. And west New Orleans. And the outlying parishes, that tourists are warned to avoid like the plague. The "rest" of NOLA, as it were, the parts that the cop I befriended and drove around with told me he feared for his life every time he entered it: the penalty he paid for being one of the few honest cops the Department had. The New Orleans that was corrupt, and decrepit, and vicious, and not really worth saving. The part of NOLA that was half-Sodom/half-Noah destroyed while the corner of St. Louis and Bourbon was dried out within 3 weeks.

      The part of NOLA that elected decades of officials who took federal money and spent it on anything other than the levees. The officials who stopped receiving significant funds in the era from Kennedy until Clinton. The part that so many Americans rightfully object to being given multi-billion dollar outlays for just to recreate the errors of the past.

      As for the "gifts" you bestow upon the midwest, those gifts that actually belonged to you in the first place were already bought and paid for: if a lifetime of debt was owed for every business relationship, the world would fall apart pretty fast. In fact, a world like that would look a whole lot like the side of New Orleans that should never be rebuilt.

    38. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Here's my reason for apathy...Jelousy...I work hard so my kids have a bright future...I hardly ever get to play"

      Hmm...I'm really hoping you are just trying to joke. Myself, and everyone I know of that lives down here in New Orleans works...and works hard too. The people that make the city move...pay taxes and all...do work. We work to support our kids (we have to work VERY hard, since the public schools sucked...we have to put our kids in expensive private schools).

      Sure...in New Orleans, we do have a bit of a party atmosphere...it comes from needing to 'blow off steam' a little after working hard. And it doesn't come for free. Take Mardi Gras for instance. Those parades aren't payed for by tax dollars...there is NO corporate sponsorship of the parades. Each one of those Krewe's are composed of members that pay up to $6K+ annually just in dues...that pay for the floats, costumes and balls..etc. Each rider has to pay out again hundreds or thousands of dollars for all those throws (beads, toys for kids, etc). That little party brings in millions of $$'s for the city with tourism. The crews pay fees to the city too...that help cover the sanitation and police coverage.

      Like I said...I hope that you're not serious about not wanting to rebuild an old and historic part of the US...because we and our visiting guests like to enjoy life with food, drink and ......

      :-)

      But, frankly...I don't know where you get that you're paying 10% of your income to support us having fun...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:Hmmmm...... by vought · · Score: 1

      That is pretty interesting rant as Louisiana, along with several other SE states, have taken back FAR MORE from the government than average.

      Yeah, most red states do take in more Federal Revenue than they pay in taxes.

      And they bitch the loudest about how Uncle Sam is picking their pocket, while those of us in California, New York, and other "blue states" pay for their roads, schools, and other federally-funded or subsidized programs.

    40. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever stop to think who sells the booze and cleans up after the tourist in New Orleans? You really don't believe the whole city is a 24 hour party. Do you?

    41. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Exactly how far off shore are the oil platforms in question..."

      Good question. We just want what other states get...12-15mi off shore for the royalties. They are all over the gulf out there...from a few feet off shore...way out past 20 mi. I've camped out on Grand Isle (well, when there was still a beach there)...and you could see them as far as the eye could see just off the coast. There are TONS of them out there...we'd get about $4 billion annually from them...if we got the % that other states got from the drilling off their shores or within fed. lands in their boundries.

      Within this limit of miles...is one of the largest oil unloading platorms in the world. The oil tankers of the world dock there...unload at sea..and we pump in under water to shore to refineries...that alone brings tons of energy to our country through us...and $$'s that we should fairly get a cut of...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:Hmmmm...... by Nunz · · Score: 1

      I think the reason most people don't feel the same way about New Orleans as New York is this. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007249 People like this, it is nice to see where you tax dollars go isn't it?

    43. Re:Hmmmm...... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, is this the United States?

      Yes, it is. The original intent of combining the words United and States was to promote competition between the individual States (countries) while still offering the citizens protection of their basic rights from tyrannical governments.

      The States united under a central government that was set up in order to protect the citizens rights, not take from the many to give to the few. Every federal official had very select limited powers and could never trample on the basic human rights we are all born with.

      The United States was not meant to be an insurance policy for those unwilling to save for a time of need.

      For history alone, it is worth keeping.

      I don't care about your past, I care about my future. If you want to save something for history sake, get a bunch of people to finance it voluntarily, not through the force of government.

      do you realized how much comes into the US from our ports?

      Do I care? The reason New Orleans continues to degrade is because our government decided to attempt to negotiate with mother nature. It failed. If New Orleans washed into the Gulf completely, there would still be a Mississippi for boats to move up and down. It has nothing to do with New Orleans or the businesses that are there, in fact, most of the income that flows into and out of the Mississippi is 70 miles or more away from the port. The port has a long history of being used for political manipulation (the Spaniards cut off the Americans as one of the first political uses of the port).

      and we have a majority of the refineries down here. No one else seems to want them in their 'back yard'.

      Actually, the refinery business is a monopoly enforced by the federal government. With more refineries, or better yet, fewer special-blends, we'd see lower gas prices. The companies that refine in New Orleans have a long history of lobbying to protect their businesses.

      The devastation that occured is directly tied to the inept government that set the standards the insurance companies followed. These insurance companies knew that if they followed the government standards and something bad happened, they'd get bailed out by FEMA. That is what happened.

      If you want to see New Orleans prosper, kick every government out. Allow companies to build where they want to and find ways to get insurance for their buildings. Get rid of taxes and business regulations for maybe 10 years and you'll see an explosion of businesses running your way.

      For now, only vultures and those who like to tax and spend will make their way to New Orleans. Oh, and those who are lazy and love the government dole.

    44. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "California...the economic output of that state justifies the risks."

      Did you enjoy that little 'bump' in gasoline prices when we got hit? I gotta imagine it would get VERY cold up north if we turned the tap off down here...you get near 30% of your fuel imported/drilled/refined through us. You like seafood? We produce about 30% of it for the nation as well. We are one of the largest port cities in the US. Economically...we ARE important to you and the rest of the nation. The more we keep dying out down here...the pinch will start to hit you...if for no other reason...economically it is the smart thing to help us rebuild this city, and help prevent this happening in the future with investment in levees and flood control...much like they did with the Netherlands...and they're about 20ft further below sea level than we are down here in NOLA.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    45. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      I live in PA. While we have coal mining in our state, I don't think we get much coal mining on Federal Land. I'd be curious to see what happens in Western coal states like Wyoming and Colorado. Do they receive federal royalties for the coal mining on Federal Land?

    46. Re:Hmmmm...... by WorLord · · Score: 2, Informative

      (Warning: I'm a native New Orleanean).

      Well, is this the United States?

      That's hardly an argument New Orleans gets to use. If New Orleans was interested in being a part of the United States, it would have stopped using Napoleonic code, stopped calling counties Parishes, and raised the drinking age to 21 much sooner than it did (and it would have done so of its own accord, instead of being pressured into it because of lack of Highway funds.) Among other things.

      Not that I agree with any or all of those things; just saying that NOLA has had a long history of flipping off the USA in its past, and claiming solidarity now is more than a little hypocritical.

      "And, while I can sympathize with your sentiments regarding say....someone right now, building a new home right on the beach somewhere along the coast."

      Then how can you not sympathize with those same sentiments regarding, say, someone who is planning on moving back to The Parish (St. Bernard), New Orleans East, Lakeview, or Gentilly? Most if not all of those folks have to bulldoze and start from scratch if they choose to rebuild where they are. Effectively, that IS "someone right now, building a new home right on the beach somewhere along the coast" - or, at the very least, someone building in an area proven to be prone to total annihilation.

      I have to wonder if seeing Katrina's damage as a lesson ("It is not physically safe to build a traditional a house here. Now we know.") is too much to ask.

      "New Orleans is where it is for reasons"

      Much of which can be attributed to rapid urban sprawl and genuine mistakes. Notice how the oldest areas of the city Proper (Uptown, French Quarter) made out considerably better. This is not a random thing - rather, New Orleans, when it was established and further on into its formative years, was built on the highest portions of the basin. Much of the rest of it (Lakeview and Gentilly are good examples) were some of the last additions, and rose fast enough to create an illusion of safety.

      It was never intended to be a huge city - for much of its life it was little more than a very large port. The offshore oil industry more or less changed that.

      "The US gets a lot from us down here...economically and culturally. (Jazz, blues, food)."

      That's another smallish nit I'd like to pick. At least musically, New Orleans has been land of the cover band for the entire 31 years of my life. Nothing new - especially nothing new in the realms of Jazz and Blues - has happened here in a while.

      I can't argue with the food, except to say that any uniquely New Orleans food offerings can't usually be found by outside visitors. A lot of places in, say, the French Quarter are nothing but burger joints with Cajun decorations on the walls.

      "We ask for help now...and you turn your back on us? Why are we less important than other parts of the US?"

      Ah. The meat of the discussion.

      I don't think the US is turning its back on New Orleans because it is less important - I think the collective back is being turned because no one wants to spend capitol rebuilding in an area that is a sure target for destruction. It was a sure target before - surrounded by water and almost 20' below sea level in some areas - and everyone knew it, but the remarkable luck New Orleans had before led to a false sense of complacency. The meager levee protections NOLA had before Katrina did not hold to their reported specifications, Katrina was far stronger than those specifications, and the levee system is considerably weaker now. I think these facts, above everything else, have many people wondering exactly how smart an idea it would be to put things back to where they were before, because they are realizing that pre-Katrina New Orleans was an obviously vulnerable place.

      Despite how much I miss my home, I wonder the same things. If I'm angry at the federal government, I am angry at it because I consider it to be a party to endanger

    47. Re:Hmmmm...... by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure if you're in or have lived in California, but the way it works out here is that earthquake insurance is only available because the state _requires_ that an insurer who wants to offer any homeowners insurance must also offer earthquake insurance. The vast majority of such policies are written through a public entity called Callifornia Earthquake Authority. Although this entity is privately funded, I bet you can guess who is stuck with policy liability (taxpayers). Thus we are subsidized.

      So are Floridians. The state set up the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund so that people can buy hurricane insurance. This state-created fund reimburses insurers for losses.

      The pattern of lots of people living in unsafe areas is actually widespread in this country. And the pattern of the governments stepping in to help those people after or in preparation for a tragedy is also common, even tragedies that are _totally_ foreseeable.

      The condition of New Orleans and its levees had much to do with federal projects diverting silt from the Mississippi away from the delta, both sinking the city further by receding the delta itself and destroying protective wetlands (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/581820/po sts and the great editorial at http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/ base/news-4/1132475704190650.xml). These projects benefitted upriver development and offshore drilling to New Orleans' detriment.

      Your sanctiomny was misplaced.

    48. Re:Hmmmm...... by omegaman_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're still wrong. Frankly, I am incenced that this debate regarding rebuilding New Orleans even exists. If this were Miami, New York, Boston, Washington D.C. or San Francisco, there would be no debate. New Orleans has more locations on the National Historic Registry than any other city in the US. -- more than Boston, Philadelphia, New York or Washington. And the loss of South Louisiana's ports and oil resources would obviously be devastating to the entire country. Here is an important truth: Katrina did NOT flood New Orleans. The flood walls, which were purportedly designed by our federal government (US Army Corps of Engineers) to stand up to a storm the size of Katrina, failed. When I walk around my 100 year old flooded home, I know it was flooded for the first time in its history by the failures of men and not the effects of nature. That's right. my home is 100 years old and it's young for New Orleans. It's never flooded. Like most New Orleanians, I was born here. ALL of my family is from here here as well. This is typical. The wetlands loss and subsidence in South LA is a well known problem. It is also a problem of the last 50 years that has been entirely created by people. (Canals were dug to support oil and gas exploration creating massive erosion. Missippi River flood controls stopped the depositing of sediment which keeps the marshes growing and not sinking) The fact is, the wetlands and adequate flood control are both fixable issues. Louisiana residents have known about it for years and we've spoken as loudly as we could to a largely unsympathetic audience. We need committed funding and action now. There's even a model for doing it right in the Netherlands. Portions of that nation are far far lower than New Orleans. Yet the Dutch have learned through experience, ingenuity, and committment how to work with nature and save their country. As one Dutch engineer pointed out in the local Times Picayune, if our nation has the ability to move vehicles on Mars, surely we can solve this problem too. Unfortunately for California residents, we probably don't have the technology to mitigate the impacts of an eventual earthquake there any time soon. Maybe those folks should move to someplace safer; they must be nuts to live in such an obviously dangerous place. If Congress can't commit to a Category 5 flood control system for South LA, then they should stop funding all flood control efforts and cut off aid for repopulating New Orleans now. Instead pay off all of our mortgages, give us all one way tickets and some moving money and call it a day. Why would any business or individual rebuild here permanently without that committment? And if Congress doesn't fix this then shame on them all. We rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. We spend billions year after year on aid to other nations. Yet we can't commit to rebuilding a city of our own? A city filled with hardworking taxpayers who have apparently committed the mortal sin of loving their home.

    49. Re:Hmmmm...... by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1

      Resisting obvious GW Bush joke because I think Austin is cool ... must ... resist ... disaster ... joke ...

    50. Re:Hmmmm...... by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Uhhh Puhleeze... We are talking about New Orleans here. Their gross economic ouput was lower than what went in to support it. They had exactly ONE fortune 100 HQ with no viable industry other than tourism.

      We can re route all of the fuel refining/delivery to Texas (which has most of it already) where they are WELL above the sea level.

      There is no reason why New Orleans cannot be moved further inland (higher elevation) and be the exactly the same port city (and the their relative size of trade through their port has been going down for last several decades).

      It is ABSOLUTELY NUTS to rebuild a port city under the sea level. Netherlands HAS NO CHOICE. Their country is about as big as a small NE state. They have no other place to expand to. Only way they can sustain themselves is to reclaim land from sea.

      US has no such problem. The land is plentiful. There are plenty of nearby port cities that can EASILY take the flow when properly planned (without any seawalls). Why go with the most expensive route when there are cheaper ways to go?

      Finally, if California was a nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world. If LA was a nation, its economy would be barely above third world. And no, I do not live in California...

    51. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Funny...the politicos couldn't fall over each other fast enough for 9/11...but, sure don't seem to be too excited to help us down here.

      You live in a bowl below sea level. Use some common sense here... what's the point in spending tens of billions of dollars to upgrade a levee system and replace destroyed houses when it could just happen again next fall? The cycle of global warming is causing storms to become increasingly disastrous to human populations along the coasts... wise men would move in-land.

    52. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should STOP BUILDING THERE. Stop wasting tax payer money by building in something that should be a lake. Morons.

    53. Re:Hmmmm...... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think I'm the only person who believes it's foolish to build in a place like N.O. in the first place, let alone rebuild. Admittedly, nobody knew the land would sink when they first started building, but we now have the advantage of hindsight, and personally I don't want my Federal Taxes used to fund protection for people who choose to rebuild in a disaster-prone area. I live in the tropical pacific, and there are strict building codes here. As a result, there was minimal structural damage during either the last CAT 5 storm 3 years ago, or 7.0 quake 2 years ago, and 0 loss of life on either occasion. Structures that were damaged by flooding were razed and compensated by FEMA (which I have no problem with), but prohibited from rebuilding in the same zone.

      Comparing NO to Holland is apples and oranges. Theirs is an entire country who are funding their own protection. Taxes from Denmark don't pay for the seawalls in the Netherlands. If New Orleans wants to fund its own system, I have no problem with that, but there's no reason for the rest of the country to pay for a few people's choice to deliberately live in the line of fire.

      And before the California/Earthquake argument is raised, flooding is a different animal entirely. Each structure is tested on its own merits during a quake, and there is no federally funded multibillion dollar anti-earthquake system being proposed.

    54. Re:Hmmmm...... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 0, Troll
      New Orleans has more locations on the National Historic Registry than any other city in the US.

      And all those old, historic locations get the big kiss goodbye. NHR is a taxpayer parasite.

      Maybe those folks should move to someplace safer; they must be nuts to live in such an obviously dangerous place.

      As the rest of the US mutters "duh..."

      If Congress can't commit to a Category 5 flood control system for South LA, then they should stop funding all flood control efforts and cut off aid for repopulating New Orleans now.

      Wow, I'm pissed off that they are spending any money to repopulate NO. Its untenable with the gov't crappy, laizze-faire "plan" with the clown school FEMA in charge. Then again, they've also cut housing funding to the NO refugees. Now you guys in the red states are stuck with all those poverty stricken, future criminal, Democrat voting, (non-european) refugees. Serves the Repugs right.

      We rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII.

      That was back when the US was on top economically, and didn't incur ridiculous federal deficits.

      We spend billions year after year on aid to other nations.

      Most of the billions are sent to Israel to subsidize its military. (And now a wall...) Gov't spending to foreign gov't is a pittance. You must be lumping in private donations.

      Yet we can't commit to rebuilding a city of our own?

      Nope. It has to go to paying the Iraq Invasion 2003 (and the Iraq Occupation in 2004, 2005, 2006...). Of course, some money could be recovered by putting on a windfall profits tax on oil companies and harrassing Halliburton & Co into providing construction services to NO in lieu of their war profiteering in Iraq, where they took the money and reneged on delivery. Oh wait, somebody voted GWB for president; the warmongering, oil industry, Halliburton & Co. friend. You really think GWB is going to help New Orleans recover?

      NO should be rebuilt, but not so that taxpayers pay billions to make it the first underwater city. You guys have to abandon most of where you're located and move out of the basin.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    55. Re:Hmmmm...... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1
      Can we get Oklahoma declared a disaster area somehow?

      You must be kidding. Oklahoma is a red state. Oklahoma and Kansas is the model of the new America. With a Texan pride in its political integrity.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    56. Re:Hmmmm...... by ahknight · · Score: 1

      He's America's problem now. We're disaster-free. You folks are screwed.

    57. Re:Hmmmm...... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Living here in a 'red' state I hereby volunteer to surrender all that swag. As soon as the 'blue' states will do the same.

      Problem is, the population is less dense out here. A few local taxes to keep the roads going will do it for us.

      Enjoy sweltering in your high density nightmare cities, then, blue staters. Believe me, you have a LOT more expensive infrastructure to keep those areas even tolerable.

      But cut it ALL off. Sounds good to me.

      --
      resigned
    58. Re:Hmmmm...... by Flashbck · · Score: 1

      I guess that by your argument, we should also abandon any town along the mississippi river. I do seem to recall that a large number of the northern states endured massive flooding in 2001, 1997, 1993,...

      Lots of places flood. Are you saying that we shouldn't bother rebuilding any place that floods? Ok, I'll play along...we abandon any place that ever floods.

      Well the next time a big earthquake hits California people will start to complain about assistance to those idiots that live on a well known seismic fault line...no more living on the Southern California coastline.

      Well a few years down the line a big old F5 tornado tears through Oklahoma City and devistates everything in it's path. 500K people have no homes and someone like you starts complaining that they were stupid to live in an area known as Tornado Alley. Screw them, we shouldn't have to assist them in their time of need. You guys are on your own. We abandon any areas that commonly are hit by tornados.

      Wouldn't you know it? a few more years down the line Mt. St. Helens erupts and covers hundreds of thousands of people die not only from the lava flow but also the dust cloud that comes with it. You are getting up in your years, but the people are waiting to hear your complaints. You being the man of honor that you are, start the rally to abandon all states that could be affected by another such eruption.

      Then lo and behold something happens to your home town. It's another freakish natural disaster and some guy starts lobbying to abandon your home town. Where do you stand now?

    59. Re:Hmmmm...... by zulux · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reasoned reply and for not doing a typical Ad Hominum attack...

      Your rage slipped in the end, but I could tell you're trying.

      I *was* being bombastic, and perhaps I was troling - BUT I did have a point behind my message.

      I'm a bit tired of the race card being played - NO has had Black politicians in power for the last 30 years, so race is not an issue.

      It's cluture - from here NO looks like culture of corruption, greed and partying; and when that culture cries out, those cries will justly/unjustly fall on deaf ears.

      Here's my reasoning in a nutshell: Why would I give $100 to NO when I *think* that it will be stolen, squandered and misspent, when I can give $100 to the Tsunami victims and *know* it will be put to good use.

      I know you don't like what I have to say, but at least you know why I, and people like me, aren't so hot about NO.

      You may have some predetermined notions about me, but you're probably wrong. But anyways, I'm just saying what's on my mind rather than not confront a difficult discusion.

      Cheers and good luck

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    60. Re:Hmmmm...... by zulux · · Score: 1

      Thanks for trying to keep your rage under control - you almost made it. You'll do better next time.

      I use the term out of wed-lock to avoid the term "bastard" as I feel a lot of empathy for the children of such situations and a lot of anger for the idiots that spawned them. The children don't deserve to be labeled - their parents do.

      In Europe, it's considered passe to get married, but in all but name they are - they raise their children together, spend their lives together. Here in the states it's different - unmarried people usually equates to low-class , non educated people who think only in the short-term.

      I have hiked through the Appalachian mountains, but no, I don't live there. I've seen more of the world just about anybody - I speak two languages fluently and a bunch of others at a tourist level. Believe me when I say that the American unmarried parents are nothing like their European counterparts.

      It must be hard to be you;

      Ha that's funny: I'm rich, I'm ethical, hard working, hard playing and have a lot of true friends. Life is good for me - I've earned it.

      Me too. I'd much rather drink and fuck than build a levy

      Your choice, just don't expect me to help you when the shit hits the fan.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    61. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason your tax dollars should be going to help these individuals is because their existence is profitable to you. Their economy is very beneficial as a whole to the US. Stop being a selfish a-hole!

    62. Re:Hmmmm...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are talking about a renter's policy, not a homeowner's policy! Homeowners does not cover major floods, you have to get a flood policy for that. But guess who is the only major underwriter of flood policies to consumers: NFIP aka US Government...

      I think the major problem is that there aren't any reinsurers picking up flood insurance and that makes the insurance companies afraid to write the policies. Besides, why would you even want to write a policy on flood if you live in a flood plain? Insurance is based on risk, the higher the risk the higher the premium. When you know that you are going to lose a lot of houses then your loss ratio goes way up and you (the insurance company) loses all of your money. So when they don't want to write you a flood policy basically they are saying that you a mathematically screwed. Their team of actuaries think that the risk to cover your crappy house is too high for the premium that they are allowed to charge (it is regulated by the states -- unless you are a non-admitted carrier, but that is another story - surplus lines tax anyone?).

      So basically what everyone is saying is that you and everyone else knows that you are living in a high risk flood zone. You will lose your house. It is only a matter of time. So why do we the tax payers have to pay for your stupidity?

    63. Re:Hmmmm...... by vought · · Score: 1

      Living here in a 'red' state I hereby volunteer to surrender all that swag. As soon as the 'blue' states will do the same.

      Sounds great to me. We'll shut off all Fed money to you and keep that which is raised here?

      high density nightmare cities

      Sounds like what happens when a bunch of red-staters run out of room. See also: Atlanta traffic, Houston traffic, etc. That's what happens when you don't teach sex-ed and pretend that an Great Invisible Guy(TM) invented everything.

      Big cities are not necessarily blue; but I'd sure as hell rather sit in traffic for two hours to get to a job in San Francisco that one in Houston.

      You remind me of the smallminded, bigted people I went to high school with! Of course, many of them are driving forklifts.

    64. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      My argument is that people should live where private companies will insure. Government should not be in the insurance business. If a private company will insure your home and you live in a flood zone, then go ahead and live there. e If you can't get flood insurance, and you still build in a flood zone, then any future losses are your personal responsibility. You shouldn't count on the government for flood insurance.

      And, please, don't use the "Domino Theory of Disasters". It is silly.

    65. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      I live in Pennsylvania, we have mine-subsidence insurance here for all of the underground coal mines. If there is Pennsylvania Mine Subsidence Insurance, a California Earthquake Authority and a Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, then I assume the residents of those other states (like my home in PA) are the only persons paying into those funds. Maybe Louisiana could set up it's own fund for future flooding in New Orleans. Louisiana doesn't pay for my coal-mine insurance, so keep my money out of rebuilding a city in a flood plane.

      As for New Orleans, as I recall the original builder of New Orleans, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, built it at that site against the warnings of his own engineers, who told him that it was in a flood zone. So, I disagree with your blaming the problem on the "feds". The condition of New Orleans had more to do with building the city in a stupid location. The problem with the "feds" is that no one had the balls to tell everyone to move out of the flood zone.

      My santimony stands in place.

    66. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      If this were Miami, New York, Boston, Washington D.C. or San Francisco, there would be no debate.

      Note, none of those cities are located in a flood plain. If they were, I would still suggest that they be torn down and rebuilt on higher ground.

      and the loss of South Louisiana's ports and oil resources would obviously be devastating to the entire country

      For a short time, probably, but then we would simply build larger ports elsewhere and imporr the oil in those locations.

      it was flooded for the first time in its history by the failures of men and not the effects of nature.

      Yes, it was MAN that chose to live in a flood zone.

      Louisiana residents have known about it for years and we've spoken as loudly as we could to a largely unsympathetic audience. We need committed funding and action now. There's even a model for doing it right in the Netherlands. Portions of that nation are far far lower than New Orleans. Yet the Dutch have learned through experience, ingenuity, and committment how to work with nature and save their country. As one Dutch engineer pointed out in the local Times Picayune, if our nation has the ability to move vehicles on Mars, surely we can solve this problem too.

      If you want better flood protection, then pay the $35 billion for flood walls out of your own state fund (I saw on ABC News last night that for you to be protected from a Cat 5, it would cost approximately $35 billion). You shouldn't expect the feds to pay for it. Why should my tax money be used to subsidize your choice of a home? As for the Dutch, it is a poor example. The Netherlands is a samll country. Most of the country is located near the sea and much/most of the population lives in Amsterdam. So, when they reclaim the sea, and build flood walls, much/most of the entire population of the Netherlands benefits. When the US builds floods walls for New Orleans, you benefit. Those of us in California, Kansas, Ohio and New York do not.

    67. Re:Hmmmm...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately...THESE types are in every city...

      :-(

      Fortunately...we got a lot of them out now...we don't need 'leeches' on society down here with attitudes like that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    68. Re:Hmmmm...... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like they are using old flakey network cards that are starting to fail and broadcast unnecessarily

    69. Re:Hmmmm...... by japhmi · · Score: 1

      You cannot, however, get flood insurance from a private company.

      Gosh, I looked up some stuff online, and I could get a quote from Traveller's insurance for flood insurance.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    70. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      As I linked in an earlier reply, This FEMA site has, in the first paragraph, the following quote:

      There's something you should know: Flood losses aren't covered by your homeowners insurance policy.

      Please re-check your Travelers policy. Make sure you are looking at a Homeowners insurance policy. This is not a policy for a renter (or tenant). Nor is it a policy for automobiles. And, if you live outside of the United States, you might be able to get coverage (your government may require that insurance companies provide flood insurance to private homeowners).

    71. Re:Hmmmm...... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      And why should you have to pay for idiots who build sky-scrapers right in the path of terrorist jets? Or people who build their houses anywhere in America? After all, a disaster can happen anywhere in the USA, so I guess you are on your own if you choose to live there. However, if you run a failing airline or a private security firm comprised of armed mercenaries - then you can get all the Federal dollars you like!

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    72. Re:Hmmmm...... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Okay. Here's an example: cut off all funding for Mass Transit in Houston and in New York.

      Which city turns into a hellhole first?

      --
      resigned
    73. Re:Hmmmm...... by japhmi · · Score: 1

      There's something you should know: Flood losses aren't covered by your homeowners insurance policy.

      Yes, that's why I went out and found FLOOD INSURANCE which is purchased in addition to a homeowner's policy.

      Please re-check your Travelers policy.

      Like I said, I just did a quick check to see if anyone was selling Flood Insurance, not that this was my insurance. Traveler's showed up as the first company on Google.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    74. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      Here is the text from this Travelers Site:
      Travelers, a participant in the federal government's National Flood Insurance Program, is one of the largest providers of flood insurance in the country.

      In other words, Travelers is simply participating in the Federal program. They are not offering the program on their own.

    75. Re:Hmmmm...... by japhmi · · Score: 1

      Travelers is simply participating in the Federal program.

      Yes, which means that Travelers will only sell to areas that have had the Federally regulated flood plain determinations, etc. I believe the government will also give loans in certain instances to Travelers because they participate in the program.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    76. Re:Hmmmm...... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      It appears that you still don't believe me. You still seem to think that Travelers is doing this of their own accord. There is only so many times I can say it, the Flood program is a federal program. Yes, Travelers will sell to areas that meet the federal requirements. But, Travelers is participating in a program set up by federal government. If they hadn't signed an agreement with the Feds, they wouldn't be selling flood insurance:

      http://www.fema.gov/nfipInsurance/companies.jsp
      Note that NFIP in the above address refers to NATIONAL Flood Insurance Program. It doesn't refer to Travelers Flood Insurance Program

      If you still don't believe me, then buy a house in a flood zone and talk with your insurance agent about how the flood insurance program works. You might be dealing with a Travelers Agent, but the program is a government program.

  3. They meant "free" WiFi by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting



    Note that nothing a government offers is truly free, even in the case here where the hardware is mostly donated.

    Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers. These programs have little competition and often cost more than a private competitive market (note municipal water reclamation costs).

    The city mentions they'll outsource the program to private companies, but do you believe these companies won't be owned by cronies? Even New Orleans has their own version of Haliburton.

    Is providing Internet access ever a city's responsible? In my town we have 3 city-wide free WiFi providers and 20 local "coffee shop" providers. I don't see why New Orleans feels that they're needing a taxpayer funded ISP when what they really need is a tax hiatus to bring businesses and entrepreneurs to LA to create jobs and better lives that jobs help to build.

    The hurricane damage is evidence to me of the decay of government projects and the wasted taxpayer money. That money would produce a safer city with more jobs if it was left to the citizens.

    1. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by flyinwhitey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as I consider the Library a government responsibility, I have to say the same about internet access.

      There is no fundamental difference to me, and universal access to information is the kind of thing I would be proud to pay taxes for.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    2. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uuh? id love to have even ONE free wifi provider in my city or the two cities close to where i live.
      you dont appreciate wifi until you dont got it.

    3. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most cities are taking this step out of frustration at the lack of commercial provision. If your city has good commercial service, probably no one will bother proposing municipal wireless. Many of us are stuck with telecomms that prefer not to risk existing profits by rocking the boat.

      I'm a libertarian type too, and I think the free market is the best solution, but it's not what we currently have. The big corporate near-monopolies we're dealing with here are a far cry from what Adam Smith advocated...in fact, he warned against big corporations, as did some of the American founding fathers.

    4. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is providing Internet access ever a city's responsible?

      I think that every government with the people's interests in mind is interested in providing them with access to information. To that end, everywhere you can't get a decent net connection (I'm lucky if I can get 31.2kbps on my dialup, because all the copper in Lake County, CA, USA is craptacular legacy pacbell stuff) should be looking at providing free wifi. It's not all that expensive to do if you do it cheaply in the first place and if the market responds with an alternative you can always just sell it off to a private company. It also helps prevent monopolies; the free market can come in and implement something better, then you can sell your solution off to some other company who can run it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by dada21 · · Score: 1

      So? You can blame your city for the lack of broadband -- many towns have impossible laws regarding communications companies, or they're paid off by the main megacomm company to restrict what smaller businesses can do.

      You can do what I did for a few years: get together with 20 of your neighbors and co-op a T1 line. Run a decent central antenna for WiFi service, cap it at 1MB or so, and you're setup. You'd pay about $35/household. Don't blame your town for your lack of initiative.

    6. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      Spending a couple hundred hours to bolt boxes to a street light and wire it in is far different in terms of cost than giving thousands of business each thousands of dollars in tax breaks.

      As far as the cronyism goes, that could be best taken care of by requiring the contract to be re-bid each year and going with the cheapest bid from a qualified agency. You can't just force the lowest bid by law in these situations. I've seen numerous occassions where "lowest bid" regulations waste money by giving the contract to a shady company which deliver substandard products or sometimes nothing at all.

    7. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

      Actually "Free" Wi-Fi is only free to some people. Most will pay for it in other ways - taxes.

    8. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by greysky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say what you want about "universal access to information", but government-funded free wifi isn't necessarily a good thing. Keep in mind that this could severely hurt ISP that were already devastated by the hurricane. If you can get wifi for free, then why pay for a service that is offered by company X? Having a bandwidth limitation seems to me a good solution, as people who can't afford access can still get it, but just not at the speeds they could if they paid for it. To take your library analogy to the next level, the library only lets you have n number of books at a time, and you have to return them. You have to pay a bookstore to have books at a "higher bandwidth", which in turn helps the economy.

    9. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by dada21 · · Score: 1

      I am against publicly-licensed corporations entirely (anarchocapitalists generally are).

      The main reason many municipalities don't have decent broadband has to do with the towns' own laws regarding who can run cable. So many towns have been bribed by megacomm corporations to writing laws restricting the ability of others in running information cables.

      Running cable or communication wire is not that expensive by any means (I worked with a company that used to provide maintenance for private trunks). You can run your own ISP if you co-op with 10-40 of your neighbors at a very decent price.

    10. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers. These programs have little competition and often cost more than a private competitive market (note municipal water reclamation costs).

      In many cases you are correct. In a normal market, it is usually a poor idea to have the government run any service or provide any product with three major exceptions. The first exception is when the free market has failed, or when the service is in the best interests of the public as a whole but is too expensive for a need market segment. For example, a new medication that completely eliminates the HIV virus is invented, but costs a considerable amount of money to provide. Because the majority of people who have HIV cannot afford this medication, HIV continues to spread throughout the population and the overall medical and social costs of the disease far outweigh the initial cost if the government just distributed the medication to anyone who needed it.

      The second instance is when there is an overriding concern for the continuation of the government. Services that fall into this category include the police, military, legal system, etc.

      The final instance is when the service in question is a monopoly due to natural or government imposed restrictions. Public street lights are on example of this. Electric companies also fall into this category. Due to government restrictions only one set of power lines are allowed on the government owned right of ways to and from houses. As a result, only one company, the one who owns these lines, can offer the service of power distribution. With no competition a for profit company is not subject to the normal market pressures that would motivate good prices and quality and the end result is disastrous for end users. As a result the government ends up stepping in and creating a "regulated" monopoly where they try to balance the benefits to the people and to the companies which results in corruption on a huge scale as companies lobby and offer other incentives to individuals within the government and occasionally use legal maneuverings to get around the regulation (see California). This results in not only substandard service, but also to corrupt government, two major problems.

      The wi-fi service New Orleans is planning to offer probably does not fit into either of the first two categories, but it does, somewhat, fit into the third. That is because it is using certain frequencies of the RF spectrum that are regulated by the government as a scarce resource. So long as nothing restricts multiple vendors from offering wi-fi in this spectrum then I think it is probably best that New Orleans leaves it to the free market. Still wi-fi is close to being a utility so there is certainly room for debate on the subject.

    11. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      As long as I consider the Library a government responsibility, I have to say the same about internet access.

      Everyone already has basic internet access.

      The telephone line.

      If you mean the ability to d/l the distro of the week, while simultaneously sharing out several gig of mp3's, then you and I differ about what 'government responsibility' is.

    12. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Note that nothing a government offers is truly free, even in the case here where the hardware is mostly donated.

      That is a useless definition of the word "free". With that definition, nothing anywhere is ever free, because someone, somewhere paid for it. It is free because it is offered for no charge. That is the definition of free. That everything requires that there be some cost associated is irrelevant. It is obvious that there is always a cost associated with everything. Free isn't about what it costs the person providing the "free" item or service. Free is what it costs the person that is using it. So it is free, "free" or whatever else you want to call it. Making up new definitions for words won't help the matter.

    13. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by peter_gzowski · · Score: 1

      Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers. These programs have little competition and often cost more than a private competitive market (note municipal water reclamation costs).

      That sentiment can be true, but the key word there is "competitive". Where little competition exists, such as in the ISP business, the profit margins of the private companies are far more expensive than the extra cost of unionized workers. Maybe if the FCC stopped pretending that everything's fine when it comes to the US's track record WRT broadband provision, and the government instituted regulations such as Canada's, which forces infrastructure owners to lease out their pipes at reasonable rates, then we can rely on private companies to provide cost-effective internet access. If that doesn't happen, than I'm fine with municipalities like New Orleans and Philadelphia providing what the private sector has utterly failed at.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    14. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by The_Hun · · Score: 1

      If I remember well my economics classes, public ownership can be a working solution if it's hard to exclude someone from benefiting from the given service - wireless access seems to be such a service.

      --
      Sig. under reconstruction.
    15. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      HAHAHAHAHA. 20 people on a T1. Cable is approx. four times faster [downstream] and I have no problem saturating cable all by myself. I can actually get cable where I live, but I can't afford it right now (A friend hooked me up with his SBC dialup, so I am currently paying $0.) Amusingly, I'm just about the only person at work who ever uses the 'net, and we do have a mere T1. Anyway, I definitely cannot afford all of the crap I'd need to run a T1 with anything like reliability and I live in an extremely hilly area (the whole county is, really, unless you're in the middle of a town) where your suggestion would not work well. I probably couldn't find 20 people to whom I have LoS who would be interested, and as I am way the fuck away from the CO, mileage charges would fucking kill me. I'm not even sure I have LoS to 20 people, period. In order to do WiFi here, you'd have to put some antennas on top of some hills/mountains, of which there are many.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by justin_speers · · Score: 1
      As long as I consider the Library a government responsibility, I have to say the same about internet access. There is no fundamental difference to me, and universal access to information is the kind of thing I would be proud to pay taxes for.

      I'm so happy you feel that way. Unfortunately, I don't. Taxes are mandatory, and they are only necessary to fund programs that people wouldn't be willing to pay for voluntarily. When you support a tax program to implement 'free' wifi, you are advocating using the Government to steal from others in order to implement a program that you personally support. All of this in a city which has far more pressing concerns than setting up a giant wifi network.

      Once Governments start controlling internet access, whether through free wifi or any other method, they will start regulating content. There is no maybe about it, they will. Look at our "public airwaves." Look at what the FCC is doing to Howard Stern every time he says the word boob.

      I have no interest in taxpayer funded wifi. Neither do the vast majority of people running around New Orleans, simply trying to survive. It's something only the most arrogant, progressive sort of nerd could advocate.

    17. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      The food at the local soup kitchen is not truly free because I have to walk my ass over there to get it. Until the government is willing to come into my house and feed me intravenously while I'm lying in bed, I'm going to act indignant because I don't want to have to search out, chew, or digest my own food. F'ing government is always trying to screw me over with their supposedly "free" services that have all these hidden requirements.

    18. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      That money would produce a safer city with more jobs if it was left to the citizens.

      And you don't wanna be messin with thousands of armed Cajuns - they got pushed out of their homes a couple hundred hears ago, and they ain't movin. Let them take care of stuff.

      Confession: I'm half Acadian.

    19. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      The hurricane damage is evidence to me of the decay of government projects and the wasted taxpayer money. That money would produce a safer city with more jobs if it was left to the citizens.

      I disagree. Many things, like bridges, levees, streets, and building codes really have to be done collectively, i.e. through government. I realize that this is heresy to the people who call themselves Republicans these days, but I do not believe that their god -- "The Free Market" -- is a benevolent deity when it comes to infrastructure and public safety. Sure the government could have done a better job preparing for such a disaster at all levels. But the way to do that is to get involved, hold your government responsible and accountable, and keep doing that forever. The answer is not to suggest that each citizen provide his own flood control, police, fire protection, roads, and be his own codes inspector. Lack of electricity to power computers is a hassle, but not insurmountable with vehicle power outlets, job-site generators, batteries, etc.

      Back to the WiFi topic: With telephone systems, cable systems and the internet services that depend on them in various states of disrepair right now, citywide WiFi is not a bad idea at all. Right now, restoring communications is critical to reconstruction, and if a metropolitan WiFi net does the trick, great. It's true that this might discourage the installation of wireless enabled coffee shops, but I think the city has bigger fish to fry right now, like coordinating a massive rebuilding and repair effort involving tens of thousands of people.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    20. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Let us look at your situation:

      1) You decided to live far away from a major metropolitan area, and in the mountains. This is your decision, and living far away from a mass of people means you'll also have limited access to more than just wifi (limited grocery stores, limited movie theaters, limited restaurants, etc).

      2) Your decision to live far away from the hubs also reduces your income and your job opportunities.

      3) You use massive bandwidth which is not the intent of free WiFi (porn, movies, and music are not public need).

      4) You want other taxpayers who actually have a little extra money to give it to you so you can have the Internet you can't normally afford so you can download porn, movies and music.

      I think I see exactly why so many people are progressives lately -- they're lazy and they make bad life decisions.

    21. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break this to you pal, but even though there are free dial-up services, the government doesn't provide free telephone lines to people. Your argument is like saying that the public already has access to books, they can go to their bookstores.

    22. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Once Governments start controlling internet access, whether through free wifi or any other method, they will start regulating content.

      Dude, your people control all three branches of government in the U.S. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to stop complaining about being oppressed by "arrogant, progressive . . . nerd[s]". You're not being hassled by the Man, you are the Man, now.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    23. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by wed128 · · Score: 1

      No, the government wouldn't censor the internet for the very reason that it is a "pull" media. Every bit you get over the internet line is requested by you.

      Radio and broadcast TV, on the other hand, are "push" media, in that data is sent to you without request. This is why it is censored.

      BTW, i am VERY opposed to the FCC's post-janet-jackson's-boob witch hunt...

    24. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by dada21 · · Score: 1

      I am no Republican and no Republican has ever truly accepted the free market, they just use the term in order to sound pro-liberty. The Republican Party started it platform with Lincoln who was anti-free market and pro-government welfare of corporations.

      I actually believe that much of what you listed (bridges, levees, streets, and building codes) could be better provided by a competitive free market. Building codes, I believe, are the number one reason we see such losses as Katrina brought. Megabuilders lobby cities to set the building code standards. These cities know if the building codes don't mandate the right build quality as needed, FEMA will save the day with public dollars. Dismantle FEMA and remove building codes and require that the insurance companies set the standard that buildings should be built at. If you don't build it per their requirements, you won't get insured. Problem solved if the insurance companies have to pay the piper when another hurricane comes. Government intrusion created this maassive loss.

      Streets and electricity has, time and again, been proven higher quality and safer and cheaper in private hands. California's backed up highway system was proven to be a public creation when they allowed a private highway to be built. When you add up the costs the public roads incur to the average person, you'd be shocked and how much of your hard earned money is going to the cement and highway maintenance unions.

      Even bridges can be privatized and paid for by the users (or even the businesses that want the inflow to their area). Fire protection, flood control and other "public needs" would be better addresses by insurance companies that aren't protected by FEMA in the event that they failed to set the right standards.

      I think we've all been indoctrinated way too much by what government has provided to actually understand that much of what we want to see public is actually costing us way more than it would if it was in competitive, private hands.

    25. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      1. You decided to live far away from a major metropolitan area, and in the mountains.
        Well, kind of. I didn't really decide to live there, I ended up there. It was the only place I had to go at the time, after the demise of my relationship.
      2. Your decision to live far away from the hubs also reduces your income and your job opportunities.
        Yes, there's not a whole lot here. I could commute, but I can't afford that right now, either.
      3. You use massive bandwidth which is not the intent of free WiFi (porn, movies, and music are not public need).
        It only takes 12 people listening to "cd quality" (128kbps) streaming audio to use up a T1. A couple people watching streaming video will do a pretty good job on it too (~384kbps per.) These are pretty normal uses of the web today, not mentioning skype etc. Or, of course, the rush on windowsupdate after a new, large patch comes out...
        Granted, you can cut down on bandwidth use (thought not this kind) a great deal with a caching proxy, but then again that ends up costing money to purchase and maintain.
      4. You want other taxpayers who actually have a little extra money to give it to you so you can have the Internet you can't normally afford so you can download porn, movies and music.
        Due to economies of scale, it ends up not costing all that much in the end. I don't just want it for me, but for everyone. I presume that problem users would be kicked off the service or throttled considerably, just as they would any other. Regardless, the way the web has gone, just surfing sites with heavy flash content etc (many of them, now) can be pretty painful unless yuo have decent bandwidth.

      I think I see exactly why so many people are progressives lately -- they're lazy and they make bad life decisions.

      Life is what happens to you in between making plans.

      Put another way: Telling [him] your plans is the best way to make [god] laugh.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      I hate to break this to you pal, but even though there are free dial-up services, the government doesn't provide free telephone lines to people.

      Then why does the Gub'mint add all those Universal Access taxes to my phone bill?

    27. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      If I remember well my economics classes, public ownership can be a working solution if it's hard to exclude someone from benefiting from the given service - wireless access seems to be such a service.

      Excluding non-subscribers from a wireless network is only difficult if you don't use some sort of access control.

    28. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      There is no fundamental difference to me, and universal access to information is the kind of thing I would be proud to pay taxes for.


      The government doesn't provide "universal access to information" now through libraries (no obscenity) and it won't through wifi, at least not for very long.

    29. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "It's something only the most arrogant, progressive sort of nerd could advocate."

      BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA. "progressive" he says.

      Then why am I doing it? Read my post history sir, and then stop relying on flawed arguments and ad hominems to try and persuade.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    30. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Peganthyrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not in New Orleans. Phone service is still out in a lot of the city, as is power. My mother could have moved back into her old apartment - it was structurally sound, the water only went halfway up the first floor and she was on the second - but there's no power, no gas, no water, no sewage, no phone there.

      --
      egypt urnash minimal art.
    31. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      I didn't claim they did provide universal access in libraries, and if you READ in context, you'll realize I acknowledged they don't.

      "I WOULD BE proud to pay taxes for".

      Do you understand now why you're wrong?

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    32. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the honest reply :)

      My company provides Fractional T1 to numerous corporations who have higher needs for the Internet than almost any home user. In my experience (this is with engineering companies as well as graphics design companies) we've been VERY lucky capping the Frac at about 6Kb/user. One of our offices has 50 users and does extremely well with a 384/384 T1 (not DSL or cable). The latency is very low and the bandwidth is more than enough except for extremely large files.

      At home right now I am testing a 10Mb solution and it is TOO FAST. No one "needs" this speed (although I just laughed as I downloaded Quicktime in seconds). Somewhere between 56k and 10m is reasonable, but where?

      That's for the free market to decide. Public ISPs, once connected, will rarely offer improvements. Competitive ISPs have to compete on price, bandwidth and uptime. They HAVE to. If they don't, someone else will lower the price, increase the bandwidth or guarantee better uptime.

      Look at web hosts. If we had to settle on one municipal host, we'd be living in a nightmare. We have thousands of possible companies to choose from and the price is so cheap it is almost free, yet we get the service we want (unlike the DMV or the department of revenue or any other government organization).

      I can't wait until some citizen can't connect to the public WiFi and gets the "Not my department" run around when they call their town's tech support line.

    33. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why most libraries have internet access in them. But we don't pay for books to get delivered to individuals' homes, and I'm not sure why we should for home internet access. If nothing else it's kind of pointless to tax people poor enough that they can't afford a computer so that their richer neighbors have wifi.

    34. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

        No, the government wouldn't censor the internet for the very reason that it is a "pull" media.


      Wrong... way wrong. The government already is censoring the internet. Maintainers of privately owned and privately hosted porn websites are being prosecuted for violating obscenity laws. Most of them even have non-obscene splash pages informing the visitor of the nature of the content. "pull media" in every sense of the word. They don't give a shit. They'll send in the FBI scumbags to confiscate your property and throw you in jail even if your site merely contained TEXT.

      If they're doing this now to sites that are privately owned and hosted, just imagine how much easier it will be for them to do it when part of the medium is government owned.

    35. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As long as I consider the Library a government responsibility

      Then please explain to me, precisely, why you feel you have the "right" to force an unwilling person to support it.

    36. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by lewp · · Score: 1

      Meh. Any small, independent, high-speed ISPs that are still around are not long for this world anyway. The Comcasts and SBCs of the world in collaboration with the FCC have assured us of that. Dial-up should already be dead, since we should have had cheap broadband available most places years ago, so no tears for those guys.

      Killing them off a little quicker in order to ensure that everyone has access to cost-effective broadband is more than worth it to me. The big telcos and cable companies aren't any more competitive in any market than a government monopoly, anyway.

      I'm a fan of competition, but in the broadband space it's not going to happen. I'd just assume a government monopoly take my money as opposed to an ostensibly private monopoly who just bends the government to their will anyway. Yeah, it'll be slow, overloaded, and the customer service will suck. Called any major utility lately?

      --
      Game... blouses.
    37. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by beejhuff · · Score: 1

      To provide access to those in geographically isolated areas where NO telecom provider will ever offer access. Think a shack in the woods or a camp in the Bayou (for an example more appropriate to my former home, New Orleans).

      For the indigent who live in an urban area but still unable to afford basic telecommunications services, those "access taxes" help not one bit.

      --
      Bryan "BJ" Hoffpauir
    38. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      "I WOULD BE proud to pay taxes for".

      Do you understand now why you're wrong?


      Yes.

      I guess I would be proud to pay taxes for truly universal access to information too, but unfortunately the government doesn't seem to be in the business of doing that these days.

    39. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      I can't see why you have a problem with a government service that wastes our taxes but on that finally lets any taxpayer make quantifiable use of said service. Any government services is going to bleed money, a free wifi service has very little overhead after intial hardware investment. A volunteer org would definitely be willing to keep it running (just call your local user groups to get it rolling)

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    40. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by jc42 · · Score: 1

      If they're doing this now to sites that are privately owned and hosted, just imagine how much easier it will be for them to do it when part of the medium is government owned.

      Actually, at least in the US it could be more difficult. The First Ammendment applies to government agencies; it doesn't apply to private corporations. So the with a private ISP, the government can just let them know that they will block certain content or there will be, uh, certain tax consequences. Then the ISP does the censoring, and you have no defense, because you can't prove the gummint's involvement.

      But it could be legally difficult to keep someone from using a public network, unless it could be shown that they were engaged in illegal activity at the time. That's called "prior restraint", and the courts haven't looked on it with much favor.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    41. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "Then please explain to me, precisely, why you feel you have the "right" to force an unwilling person to support it."

      Because taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

      I am of the opinion that providing universal internet access is an investment that will pay dividends. I really feel the next step for US society depends on our citizens access to information.

      Isn't the cliche "information is power"? When it comes to most things I tend to side against government interference.

      But, really some things are too important. I think this is one of them.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    42. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      "Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers. These programs have little competition and often cost more than a private competitive market (note municipal water reclamation costs)."

      When was the last time a unionized worker made as much money as a corporate CEO or any of the higher ups in any large corporation? Where do you think most of the revenue generated by a private corporation goes? I'll tell you one thing, it's not going to the labor force.

      Few people working in the public sector make 7 digits a year or more from their government employment. If a public service is taken over by the government(not simply contracted out to the private sector) then it is more than likely that the cost of the service will decrease. If you think that for-profit businesses will charge less for a service than a not-for-profit organization would then you need your head checked out. Just look at all the countries where water has been privatized by private corporations who promptly raise the cost of water as soon as they gain control.

    43. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Primarily to ensure that access in remote rural areas is available at the same cost as access in urban areas.

      The definition allows for price breaks on long distance calls for low-income individuals as well, but the vast majority of that funding goes to ensuring that someone out in the middle of nowhere has dial tone, 911 access, directory assitance, operator access, touch tone, single-party service, and long-distance access at the same cost as people in urban settings.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    44. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We hear these same arguments every damn time a muni wifi story comes up. Look, your econ 101 arguments about competition in the market don't work with communications networks. First is the massive infrastucture costs to set up anything beyond a one or two coffee shop network. That's a big barrier to entrance that means only the big boys can play, i.e SBC, Time Warner, or the local government. Second thing is people and emergency services rely on communications networks so they tend to be tightly regulated. High infrastructure costs + regulation = monopoly. It's the same deal for energy. How many communications or energy companies do you have competing for your business? In my city of >1 million it's still one each. Frankly in this day in age I'd rather have my wifi in the hands of the local corrupt politician than some megacorp. It's easier to get a politician's notice than get the billions in shares to make a corporation take notice.

    45. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Your bookstore analogy is horribly broken.

      What I'm saying is that 99.9% of the population already has access to, and already pays for, basic POTS service. POTS service which can also be used to connect to the internet, if so desired.

      These "free" muni wifi services do not provide access vs. non access. They provide extra speed over the basic dialup capability.

      Saying that without these "free"(taxpayer supported, govt controlled) services people have no chance to get online is merely silly.

    46. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Inebrius · · Score: 1

      It's due to the competition that we are not stuck with escalating costs and diminishing service.

      For a long time, the cable company had a monopoly on premium service to deliver viewing content. Sure, there is free over the air TV, but even that isn't free...you pay by watching the commercials (and it is still a private for profit business). People kept complaining that cable prices kept going up, much faster than inflation, and they weren't offering anything more. Choices were limited.

      Then came the satellite networks. Now we can choose between cable, Dish, DirecTV, and Voom. Netflix has also changed the market.

      Internet access is the same. You can choose between a number of DSL companies, cable modem, satellite, dialup, and soon service over power lines. Prices have also been dropping and speed has been increasing. That is the market. If there is a demand, it will be met, provided the government does not over regulate, restrict, or otherwise impede it from working.

    47. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is providing Internet access ever a city's responsible?

      Maybe. WiFi might be the sort of infrastructure that it is best to only have one version of ina particular area (like roads, water pipes, ...). These are best run by the government or by highly regulated utility companies.

      The citizens of any city should be allowed to decide if it is.

    48. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by sybarite · · Score: 1

      I have a client that is doing work in New Orleans right now. Several employees were just equipped with Verizon EVDO PC cards for Internet access. From what I understand most of the reconstruction contractors use the same. So for what its worth, the municipal wifi will likely compete with Verizon more than a local ISP.

    49. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I agree that people don't need 10Mbps but think of the possibilities of everyone having high bandwidth! I mean, if the backbones could handle it, ha ha. Seriously though, consider being able to use some sort of encrypted, authenticated filesharing system that doesn't suck (like Coda, or AFS) such that you could treat other people's files as local. You only need a couple hundred Mbps (oh, is that all?) before you're around hard drive speeds.

      Keep in mind that while current web services only really require maybe a 512kbps connection for reasonable performance (long gone are the days when a 128kbps connection would do the job - I used to have ISDN back in like '93 and at the time, it was pretty sweet) we will find new ways to use the bandwidth as we get more bandwidth, just as we have found new and more interesting ways to consume CPU cycles and memory capacity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly American, are you stuck with AOL?

      City wide wifi is municiple infrastructure and has been available here (http://www.fred-ezone.ca/). Not bad eah =))

    51. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, well then we totally agree. Among other things I read Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom about a year ago and I'm convinced.

      If it were up to me I'd get rid of allocated spectrum, too (David Reed's openspectrum site makes the case for it being obsolete).

    52. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers."

      Who are all currently part of the diaspora spread out across the country. If the cops didn't stick around, you think all those other evil government workers are still there?

      "The city mentions they'll outsource the program to private companies, but do you believe these companies won't be owned by cronies?"

      The city won't be doing it voluntarily. As the summary mentioned, the only reason it'll be outsourced is because Baton Rouge (read "BellSouth and Cox") insists on it.

      "Is providing Internet access ever a city's responsible?"

      If the city has a republican form of government and the people say it is, then the answer is "yes."

      "bring businesses and entrepreneurs to LA to create jobs and better lives that jobs help to build."

      Katrina hit in August. It's almost December. Where are these entrepeneuers?

      "The hurricane damage is evidence to me of the decay of government projects and the wasted taxpayer money."

      Silly me, I thought it was evidence of a category 4 hurricane hitting a city built on shifting soil.

      And really, the city is a shining example of one built with little rhyme or reason, no real oversight beyond those entrepeneuers you extoll. Somebody builds on the river, somebody builds next to that, some people start throwing up skyscrapers where there is no bedrock, and *poof*. New Orleans was built the way it was because nobody ever came in and said "No, you really shouldn't build there like that."

    53. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Big deal.

      The government doesn't provide free Comic Books, either. (aside from DARE comix at the police station, probably...)

      --
      resigned
    54. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        So if I'm a speed reader does that mean I'm stealing bandwidth from the local library? ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    55. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      But it could be legally difficult to keep someone from using a public network

        I'd think it'd be impossible, unless you have them either locked up or escorted everywhere.

        Reminds me of some of the "cybercriminal" stories, where they are "banned from the net" for X years. So what? They never surfed/played on a friend's machine when they were having some beers in a basement somewhere? Right... IMHO any "legal" restrictions on internet use are just a bunch of vaporthought unless the gov is willing to put surveillance on the "perp" 24/7.

        Nowadays, all they'd have to do is walk into a library or a coffeeshop...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    56. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Just to add to your last statement a bit, wasn't there an article recently about some TV broadcasters deciding to offer shows for download? There's something right there that will create demand for the ISPs up their BW (assuming it's successful, of course).

        I agree with dada about the competition - there's a big war going on in my area right now, and prices have remained stable for two years while bandwidth has gone up quickly. Any public wifi should cap it's services (and not offer any frills - this would also help keep the taxpayer cost down, and keep the public wifi in the red). I don't know where to put that cap, I think that should be decided locally.

        I also agree about the choice of hosts. Where I used to live, there was one, and their costs (despite being one of the, if not the first, town in the US to offer cable) were very high. Where I live now, there are two competitors (no real DSL here yet, just cable) and the cost of a really good highspeed cable internet connection is an order of magnitude lower than where it was previously; and as I noted above, it's effectively dropping.

        As another poster noted, it's sort of a libraries vs. bookstores kind of thing. Both are necessary. (and I wish they'd quit killing the libraries... :( )

        Government shouldn't compete with the private sector. But government also has a responsiblity to provide it's citizens with the best access to information it can. So, there has to be a balance. Of course most city governments - the smaller ones, anyway - are likely to contract out most of the infrastructure :) and as long as at least some of it is local, that's a good thing.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    57. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by justin_speers · · Score: 1
      Dude, your people control all three branches of government in the U.S. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to stop complaining about being oppressed by "arrogant, progressive . . . nerd[s]". You're not being hassled by the Man, you are the Man, now.

      That's an odd assumption to be making. Are you of the opinion that there are only two schools of thought in the entire world?

      I don't support the people in power. "My people" are not in power. I'm an anti-war Libertarian, and the only person who holds similar views to mine that I am aware of in our entire federal Government is Ron Paul, former LP Presidential candidate.

      So am I still the man?

      But thanks for once again demonstrating how arrogant progressives enjoy making baseless assumptions about anyone's political views who may not agree with their own.

      I'm not much interested in the specifics of who is in control at any given time anyway; giving the Government power to control the delivery of information is a recipe for disaster even if I personally liked and agreed with those in power.

    58. Re:They meant "free" WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are considering an artifical scarcity of limited bandwidth and physical scarcity in the number of books. However, ISPs can still compete in the realm of services and even faster access. Otherwise you will have only marginally better service from the ISPs than the muncipality. FWIW, Comcast in Dallas wants to provide something like 6 Mbps vs the 2-3 Bbps of SBC. Both are faster than modems, but only by so much.

      512 Kbps is 10 times better than modems, but 144 Kbps is barely better than a pair of modems.

      Also that 512 Kbps will be shared and susceptible to a lot of interference. DSL and cable are shared, but not nearly as susceptible, thus better service.

      The legislation is a handout.

      The real winners are the cell phone companies who charge per kilobyte and who would also lose to VOIP.

  4. Uhhh by garrett714 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I honestly hope this isn't their only solution for hurricanes / floods in the future.

    1. Re:Uhhh by iSeal · · Score: 3, Funny

      net send 192.168.*.* Please Evacuate. Incoming Hurricane.

      "Um sir, wasn't that disabled in XP SP2?"
      "Crap."

  5. WOW...I live here and this is the first I've heard by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've not heard about this down here yet. It would be nice...but, frankly, without power and gas to be able to live back at my place...this isn't much use.

    I did find it useful the other day, to go to Cooter Brown's and use their wireless while watching some football, and drinking some good beer...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. Free wi-fi is important by eobanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    for narrowing the digital divide. I usually hate over-used politicised terms like 'digital divide' but regardless, it does exist, and free widespread personal net access is key to spreading information to more people. While internet access from libraries and such is great, it's better still to have access in one's home.

    Imagine if electricity was not a public utility but a service offered by two or three price-gouging regional monopolies. A quick comparison of US broadband penetration and Europe's (largely) socialised system demonstrates why these sorts of projects are needed.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

    1. Re:Free wi-fi is important by garrett714 · · Score: 1

      You should read the post above yours. This isn't about the "digital divide" or getting information to more people. The whole point is, what good is free WiFi internet when most people don't even have a house to live in. Too me it just seems like an incredible waste of taxpayer's money when it could be spent on rebuilding the destroyed city they live in.

    2. Re:Free wi-fi is important by EiZei · · Score: 1

      Imagine if electricity was not a public utility but a service offered by two or three price-gouging regional monopolies. A quick comparison of US broadband penetration and Europe's (largely) socialised system demonstrates why these sorts of projects are needed.

      Well, socialised internet connectivity is not as common in Europe than most americans think. Forcing telecoms to compete by making them lease their copper etc. has worked wonders.

    3. Re:Free wi-fi is important by dada21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see the digital divide as caused by inept social programs, not fixed by them. The anti-poor and anti-minority regulations we have today destroy the access you want. Look at how the minimum wage destroys job opportunities for the poor and for minorities. The tax system we have in this country is even worse (most people pay only a tiny amount in actual IRS income tax but everyone pays a huge amount of their income for all the other taxes) for the poor.

      If you want to help the poor and the minorities break this digital divide, you need for them to have opportunities in life that give them reason to learn about the Internet and about information freedom. Our public education system does the absolutely opposite, as it gives the poor a basically free daycare system that offers their offspring the indoctrination in the system that hurt their parents' desire to break free.

      The only thing that really helps bring wealth to the poor is work -- hard work. Both my parents came to the U.S. with absolutely nothing, not even good comprehension of the language. Yet they both busted their rears so that my siblings and I would have better lives, and I work hard so that my children will have an even better opportunity.

      Don't blame the lack of Internet knowledge on ISPs. I'd rather see privated completely deregulated electrical service as well.

    4. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time a minimum wage increase has been proposed, libertarians have hollared about all the jobs that will be lost.

      And every time the minimum wage has been increased, the predicted catastrophy has not happened.

    5. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because the digital divide is chock-full of people who are able to afford a laptop/desktop with a wi-fi card, but can't afford basic dial-up service. And as you can imagine, that's a large, large group.

      And slightly OT, but I'm going to laugh very hard and very long when the first "Municipal Wi-Fi blocking content" story hits /. Because we all know elected officials never want to block the citizens they represent from information....

      well, with kids yeah. We have to protect the kids. And you know how irresposible some parents can be. So lets put a huge filter on porn coming down the pipe. Tax dollars shouldn't pay for porn anyway.

      Oh, and smoking. Bad. Very bad. Lets ban any site that promotes smoking. Promotion of all things smoking over publicly financed wi-fi? I think not! You might as well just shove smokes in babies mouths.

      What? This site offends the sensiblities of [fill in religious group/cult of choice]? Block them too. We're all fine, upstanding [christians, jews, muslims, hindis, scientologists] and there's no way our community should have to see this.

      What? People are going to RELIGIOUS sites? Hasn't anyone heard of the seperation of church and state? If someone wants to cyber-pray let them pay for their own access.

      Hate speech. Who doesnt' hate hate speech? Of course! Its gone. ("by the way, what is hate speech?" "Ah.. the devil's in the details")

      Wal Mart? Do we really want our citizens helping keep that community killing, baby eating, spawn of satan corperation in business by allowing them to purchase cheap shit over our wi-fi? I think not! If you want to destroy mom and pop shops do it on your own nickel. ...

    6. Re:Free wi-fi is important by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      Forcing telecoms to compete by making them lease their copper etc. has worked wonders.

      Oh? Let's see, I can get dsl access through sbc or, uh...huh.

      Yeah, or sbc. There is no one else in my area, and I'll be god damned if I give sbc a penny.

      Public operated city wide wifi paid through taxes is the way to force competition. SBC ( and other carriers ) would have to have a really good package for people to want to use it ( normal people. I'm sure the wifi wouldn't work for the geeks out there ).

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    7. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      But it FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELS good. And that's all that really matters anyway.

    8. Re:Free wi-fi is important by LordKazan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather see privated completely deregulated electrical service as well.

      When will you anarcho-capitalists actually take economics 100.

      Given
      A) A service that has a near zero elasticity of demand in relation to price
      B) Is infrastructure

      (Things Fitting A&B: Roads, Water, Sewer, Power, phone, cable, electricity, gas)
      You CANNOT deregulate, you CANNOT expect the "Free market" to ensure quality and low price.

      Infrastructure doesn't follow the normal rules because it's something that should not be duplicated concurrently - imagine having two roads systems, or two seperate water systems, power etc - there isn't the space to do it and the costs are prohibitive. This prevents normal competitive practices of the free-market and favors large intrenched monopolies

      Have you not been paying attention? power was deregulated in some areas - it resulted in artificially created roving blackouts to give the impression that demand exceeded supply so that price-gouging could occur.

      Adam Smith himself said that capitalism needs enforced rules to keep all parties treating each other fairly - why can you not recognize this?

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    9. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As other people pointed out, the problem in NO isn't whether some company has been disadvantaged by the government offering some service, it's that the wrong services are being offered. Months later, and several wards of New Orleans are still completely uninhabited. Free internet isn't going to get people to come back when their homes are buried in mud or knocked flat.

      Of course, not sure what your minimum wage rant has to do with this, even below prevailing wage as authorized by Bush, nobody's exactly rushing back to get a job when they can't even get into their house. Paying these people even less isn't going to get their house repaired faster, and something tells me that even if a company managed to scrape together people willing to build houses at $3 an hour, that the company is not going to sell those houses at a price their $3 workers could afford. It's been pretty clear since Ford's death that his lessons have long since been forgotten.

    10. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you not been paying attention? power was deregulated in some areas - it resulted in artificially created roving blackouts to give the impression that demand exceeded supply so that price-gouging could occur.

      Apparently you haven't been paying that much attention. Most of Cali's problems came from partial deregulation. Wholesale prices were deregulated, but not consumer prices. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

      Now, PA has had a much more deregulated power economy. How many rolling blackouts have you seen there? Or in the UK? Just wondering.

    11. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Randall_Jones · · Score: 1
      If you want to help the poor and the minorities break this digital divide...
      let's get one thing straight, it's poverty and only poverty that's responsible for the "digital divide". In itself, being black or asian, has nothing to do with the ability to use the internet. The "digital divide" is because people can't afford computers or spending $30+/month for broadband.
      The only thing that really helps bring wealth to the poor is work -- hard work.
      Have you been reading Horatio Alger stories? There are countless reasons hard work isn't always sufficient: medical bills, disability, insufficient child care, etc.

      As for the anti-minimum wage argument, yes, raising the minimum wage may depress overall employment numbers slightly, but it would also allow for more single worker households where a spouse can stay home to care for children or go back to school since their partner is bringing in more income, not to mention increasing the minimum wage would increase consumer spending, which increases production, which increases employment -- something trickle down economics hasn't been able to accomplish in the 20 or so years it's been in effect.

      Finally that minimum wage article was obviously written by someone who's never been poor. Poor people aren't actually poor because they're overweight and have color tvs???
    12. Re:Free wi-fi is important by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The machine I am currently using cost around two hundred quid on eBay over a year ago. It's a 1.2GHz Celeron and it has WiFi. That works out at around ten months of broadband Internet access here. If you can't afford a laptop, then you can buy a similar spec desktop for around the cost of two or three months broadband Internet access. I find it quite easy to believe that a family could afford a cheap PC, but not a decent Internet connection.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Free wi-fi is important by bobbuck · · Score: 1

      Doesn't South Korea have much better internet access because it's deregulated? Everything has elasticity of demand in relation to price. Occasional price gouging is a small price to pay for freedom, relatively speaking.

    14. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      How many families that can't honestly afford dial-up (which is all you need for access to the internet) are going to drop a few hundered dollars on a computer? If finances are that tight then dropping a couple of hundred bucks on a computer is going to low down on the "must need" list. Free Wi-Fi has little to do with closing the digital divide then it does giving the middle class a nice, new entitlement. Throwing in the Digital Divide rhetoric just makes it a little more politically paletable.

    15. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      While porn will certainally be an issue, nobody makes software to block smoking or negative comments on public officials. Well, maybe the Chinese, but I doubt they'll share.

      As far as porn goes, hopefully the communities will offer blocking software to download and leave it at that. My responce to "taxpayers shouldn't be paying for downloading porn" is "I'm a taxpayer, so unless I'm commiting a crime, STFU. I don't pay taxes so some redneck can play Fantasy Nascar online either, but I'm not going to complain about it".

    16. Re:Free wi-fi is important by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually demand for electricity SHOULD be directly affected by the price. I know when my electric bill is high one month, I notice for a new months when I leave my lights on, my TV on, and even cut back a little on other electrical usage (my projector, etc). The same is true for my natural gas and all that.

      I give almost $100 extra a month in tithes to my church to be put into a fund marked for poor families at my church so they can have basic utilities (including a Christian ISP). Guess what? Recently, a guy who used the benevolence fund was found to be using crack -- AGAIN. He's getting cut out of the fund until he seeks help (which we will pay for). I'd rather see the really poor and disturbed get help from a charity that can monitor their progress than a government that wants to keep them poor.

      Many of you can't/won't give to charity because you're spending 50% of your income at taxes of every level so some government official can keep doling out welfare. If they solved the problems of the poor and unforunate, we wouldn't need government. Better to keep them stuck.

    17. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Doesn't South Korea have much better internet access because it's deregulated?

      Nope.

    18. Re:Free wi-fi is important by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Actually in the past 20 or so years we've seen central banking inflation cause prices to sky rocket while wages and taxes have not kept up.

      Also, in the past 30 years or so we've seen average household tax levels go from ~20% of total income to over 50% of total income, forcing the second parent to work.

      We've seen teachers asking for raises that out-perform what others in their towns are getting, causing higher property taxes (and higher rents).

      We've seen savings robbed from central bank destruction of interest rates to help investors over the poor.

      Don't get me started on why the poor are still poor. It is a problem so diverse, yet in the end I have to blame government way more than I can blame competitive businesses.

    19. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      but I'm not going to complain about it

      But there in lies the rub. It doesn't matter what you do, all that matters is that someone will. Take a look at the battles that happen at the local levels in terms of cable licenses (and what can/cannot be carried on them [i.e. Spice channel)), school board curriculum, "disinvestment" initiatives (South Africa in the 80s, Israel today), library filters, etc., etc., etc. People WILL complain, some people WILL get local laws passed restricting access to content, lawsuits WILL be filed and lots of time and money WILL be wasted in the never-ending battle of who gets to police this "community property."

      People who are pro-muni wi-fi have buried their head in the sand about these types of issues. Put wi-fi access in the hands of politicians and this is what you will end up with. Mark my words.

    20. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I wish I could disagree with you, but my last shreds of faith in humanity were destroyed at the news that there will be a Rocky 6 and Rambo 4.

    21. Re:Free wi-fi is important by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I don't see any "digital divide." I know people living under the poverty line who were able to buy their kids cheap used computers and cut back on cable TV to pay for cheap DSL.

    22. Re:Free wi-fi is important by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      Apparently you haven't been paying that much attention. Most of Cali's problems came from partial deregulation. Wholesale prices were deregulated, but not consumer prices. That's a disaster waiting to happen. What point are you trying to make? That the California citizens should have taken the bath instead of the state government?

      You do know what happened right? Enron and other energy producers artificially lowered supply by claiming that various power generators were "down for maintenance/fixes" forcing brownouts during the heaviest usage season.

      So, based on your reasoning, by passing the artificially high prices directly to the consumers would have prevented this fraud from occuring? Really? You are kidding right? You do realize that A/C in LA and business power consumption in California is not something that can be easily increased or decreased based on prices, right? Sure, over decades you would see some equilibrium, but not for a short term artificial shortage like Enron did, right?

      Give me a freakin break!

    23. Re:Free wi-fi is important by TheSync · · Score: 1

      power was deregulated in some areas

      Where? California changed power regulations to call them "market-oriented," but continued to maintain plenty of stringent price regulations. As described here...
      If "deregulation" means less - not more - political control over an industry, then the California electricity industry has not been "deregulated."

      First, the state forced the electricity companies to sell their power plants to independent investors and become power distributors.

      Second, the state assumed total day-to-day control of the utilities' power grid to make sure they couldn't abuse their market power.

      Third, the state required new owners of the divested power plants to sell their juice to a state-managed "power pool." The price of that power is set by a daily spot market run by - you guessed it - the state. Electricity companies that wanted to compete for your business had to buy their electricity from this pool, and the price charged them was equal to the highest price received by any electricity generator in the daily state-managed spot market.

      Fourth, regardless of what they pay for power in the wholesale market, no company can charge a consumer more than 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That price can't change until the company has paid off its share of the bailout the state gave the electricity companies in order to accept this new regulatory scheme.

      Now, what kind of "deregulation" imposes rigid government dictates on how industries should organize themselves? What sort of deregulation keeps fixed prices on retail providers? What kind of "deregulation" requires retailers to buy power through a state-run central exchange? And what brand of "deregulation" forbids retailers from buying electricity more than one day ahead?

      Would you like to prove the existance of something with a non-zero elasticity of demand in relation to price?

      The only economically valid argument for public utilities is the potential elimination of transaction costs in purchasing land for right-of-ways, and the fact that land is truly a limited commodity (with the exception of landfill islands...)

      RF spectrum is much less limited than land, especially given new work on MIMO and UWB.

    24. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      Actually demand for electricity SHOULD be directly affected by the price. I know when my electric bill is high one month, I notice for a new months when I leave my lights on, my TV on, and even cut back a little on other electrical usage (my projector, etc). The same is true for my natural gas and all that.

      Actually, the original poster did refer to this effect when he wrote of the elasticity of electricity demand. It is the tendency of consumers to buy less of something when it is dear and more when it is cheap. The demand curve for such a commodity has a nice monotonic slope, as price goes up, demand goes down. When the demand is "inelastic", it remains more constant as prices change. It's been a few years since ECON 140, but I think the essence is there. Wikipedia probably has a primer on economic demand, which you should read instead of relying my summary for anything involving life-support.

      Anyway, a given commodity can have a demand curve that is elastic in some places and inelastic in others. You illustrate this point by turning off unused lights and refraining from use of high-wattage luxuries. You reduced your demand in response to higher prices. After you've turned off all the unnecessary appliances, your demand can't be cut much more -- it is now more inelastic. Your fridge keeps humming along, oblivious to how much it's costing you, and the kids need some light to do homework by, etc. Kinda sucks to be poor and have to choose between paying the electricy and gas bills while well-off guys like you and me have to decide whether or not to use space heaters and grow lamps to turn the garage into a tropical orchid paradise.

      As for taxes, I don't think mine have ever been lower. Yours too, probably. But our friend who's struggling to pay the electricity bill hasn't seen much improvement in his tax situation. He's still got to pay sales tax on everything he buys, and on top of that, the necesities of life consume a far greater portion of his income. And his Social Security still comes out of his paycheck at the same rate we pay. Except we don't have to pay SS tax on all our income. Interest, dividends, capital gains, etc. aren't considered earned income, so no Social Security on those.

      So my effective tax rate is nowhere near 50% -- once upon a time it had been if you counted SS and sales tax, but it's far lower now.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    25. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      You do know what happened right? Enron and other energy producers artificially lowered supply by claiming that various power generators were "down for maintenance/fixes" forcing brownouts during the heaviest usage season.

      And this was caused by that hyper-capitalistic, laissez faire deregulation that California foisted upon the state... execpt when it isn't. Let's take a look at California's "deregulated market."

      a) power companies were forced to split their distribution and power generation businesses. They could keep the distribution buisness, but had to sell the generating buisness (to the like of Enron).

      b) California assumed total day-to-day control of the utilities' power grid to make sure they couldn't abuse their market power.

      c) Cali required new owners of the generation plants to sell their juice to a state-managed pool, whose prices were set by the state. The distribution companies were forced to purchase their electricty from this pool. They could not go else where for cheaper power.

      d) no matter what they paid for the electricity from the pool, the distributers were capped on what they could charge.

      So, based on your reasoning, by passing the artificially high prices directly to the consumers would have prevented this fraud from occuring?

      No, real deregulation would have kept this fraud from happening . When you force everyone to purchase from a single pool that is supplied by a small subset of generators that is a recipe for total abuse. Cali was about a deregulated as Amtrack. As you say, Econ 101 stuff.

      But, if you are correct and deregulation in inself will cause massive, Enron like fraud then please explain how the likes of PA, the UK and other juristictions who have opened their power markets to a much larger degree than California ever did still seem to be purring along quite nicely? Really? How do you explain it?

    26. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dial-up runs $10+/m on top of the telco fees for using the line (local calls are metered and capped for residential lines) and for this they have poor speed and their phone is busy. For the sake of argument say that the fees for using their phone for dialup access will be $5/m (low estimate, local caps are usually ~$20). They can buy a computer with wireless for $400, which means with your plan using their computer would cost them on average $400 + $15*M where M is the number of months that they own their computer. In one year that's an additional $180 and in five that's $900. With municipal broadband the additional fee will probably be about $0 because they won't be paying property taxes because they can't afford to own land and live in HUD-subsidized apartments. This returns for them the utility of their phone line, improves their access speed and reliability, and reduces their cost over five years by $900. Since dial-up speeds are becoming increasingly untenable this saves them an enormous amount of money from not having to pay $30-50 /m for cable or DSL.

    27. Re:Free wi-fi is important by dada21 · · Score: 2

      You'd be surprised that you are likely paying more than 50% of your income in taxation.

      One year I calculated my total tax burden to be over 60% (of course we do receive SOMETHING in return but I believe it is far more expensive than if I was free to pick and choose what I'd pay for).

      Remember, taxation is not just income tax. You're already paying about 15% in FICA on top of your IRS tax. There's the State income tax as well. Don't forget sales tax, gas taxes, property taxes, regulatory costs and even the taxes passed on to everything you buy or purchase. There are hundreds of taxes you're paying and when you add them all up, they account for more than 50% of your income.

    28. Re:Free wi-fi is important by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      But, if you are correct and deregulation in inself will cause massive, Enron like fraud then please explain how the likes of PA

      You have twisted my argument. I did NOT argue that deregulation will cause massive fraud. What I argued was that deregulation would not have STOPPED the massive fraud the Enron engineered.

      Free market works best when there is elastic demand and supply. However, when it comes to power, both demand and supply is not elastic at all (at least not in short time tables, i.e. The elaborate setup that California has setup was create to offset this inelastic market. What they forgot to take into account when they created their control system was that some suppliers would NOT play by the rules and willing break laws increase their profit.

      And don't bother the in deregulated system this kind of fraud would not be possible. Again, that would be true in perfectly elastic system, but power supply, as I said before, is not elastic at all.

      Well, I don't know if I can really fault them for expecting people to play by the rules. Oh well. Just goes to show, when it come to essentials (like power) it would be just easier to have the government take over entirely.

    29. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      You have twisted my argument. I did NOT argue that deregulation will cause massive fraud. What I argued was that deregulation would not have STOPPED the massive fraud the Enron engineered.

      Really? Let's take a look at what you said earlier...

      You CANNOT deregulate, you CANNOT expect the "Free market" to ensure quality and low price.

      So again, let me ask this very relevant question: why, if deregulation can't stop such Enron fraud, haven't we seen it reproduced in every other jurisdiction where power markets have been opened up? Why has quality not degraded (and actually improve) and prices spike?

      Free market works best when there is elastic demand and supply.

      Yes, and it would have worked well if the wholesale market was actually deregulated, instead of pseudo-de-regulated (i.e. badly regulated) like in was in California. The wholesale market is quite elastic. IF distribution companies had the right to make their wholesale purchases from anyone instead of the state run "pool" when Enron pulled their "we have maintenance issues" BS and cut supply the distributors could have just given Enron the finger and purchased their power from elsewhere (lets not forget, if they weren't forced to sell their power generation in the first place they wouldn't have been so beholden to the "pool"). That is the free market at work. Instead, they were forced to purchase from the pool. Enron, et al knew everyone was dependant on them for power, thus the problem.

      And don't bother the in deregulated system this kind of fraud would not be possible. Again, that would be true in perfectly elastic system, but power supply, as I said before, is not elastic at all.

      Pure bullshit. The power market is elastic. There's a hell of a lot more to the power game than putting juice into your fridge and XBox. Claiming otherwise is courting ignorance.

    30. Re:Free wi-fi is important by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      Really? Let's take a look at what you said earlier...

      You CANNOT deregulate, you CANNOT expect the "Free market" to ensure quality and low price.

      So again, let me ask this very relevant question: why, if deregulation can't stop such Enron fraud, haven't we seen it reproduced in every other jurisdiction where power markets have been opened up?

      Ummm.... I don't know where you got that quote, but that wasn't me. And you still haven't answered MY QUESTION, how could have the deregulated market stopped the Enron fraud from occuring?

      Yes, and it would have worked well if the wholesale market was actually deregulated, instead of pseudo-de-regulated (i.e. badly regulated) like in was in California. That is PURE BS. Elasticity of Power TRADING Market is not the same thing as the Power Market elasticity. Regulation has NOTHING to do with limiting the elasticity of the power generation. Oil/coal prices, zoning laws, and environmental lawas etc. is what causes the inelasticity, not regulation.

      It takes many years to build a power plant and most communities in US does not want power plant near their homes. HOW THE HECK IS DEREGULATION GOING TO FIX THAT???

      Meanwhile, our society is ever more dependent on easily accessible power. And that demand is not very elastic either.

      This is EXACTLY what the grandparent poster was trying to argue why government needs to step in when it comes to building and managing public infrastructure.

      I've answered your questions, why don't you answer mine? Again, how could have deregulation of the power trading market could have prevented the Enron fraud?

    31. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Detritus · · Score: 1

      There is more to the problem than most people think about. Telephone service is a problem for many poor families because it involves credit. If you don't have a good credit rating, the telephone company is probably going to demand a hefty deposit, not to mention paying any old unpaid telephone bills. It can be difficult for a poor family to control telephone use. Abuse of the service often results in a large bill, which they can't afford to pay, resulting in service disconnection and a black mark on their credit rating.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    32. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1
      I've answered your questions, why don't you answer mine? Again, how could have deregulation of the power trading market could have prevented the Enron fraud?

      I answered it in the parent post. To quote:

      Yes, and it would have worked well if the wholesale market was actually deregulated, instead of pseudo-de-regulated (i.e. badly regulated) like in was in California. The wholesale market is quite elastic. IF distribution companies had the right to make their wholesale purchases from anyone instead of the state run "pool" when Enron pulled their "we have maintenance issues" BS and cut supply the distributors could have just given Enron the finger and purchased their power from elsewhere (lets not forget, if they weren't forced to sell their power generation in the first place they wouldn't have been so beholden to the "pool"). That is the free market at work. Instead, they were forced to purchase from the pool. Enron, et al knew everyone was dependant on them for power, thus the problem.


      Regulation has NOTHING to do with limiting the elasticity of the power generation. Oil/coal prices, zoning laws, and environmental lawas etc. is what causes the inelasticity, not regulation.

      Wrong, wrong and wrong. Considering that power in this country has been regulated out the wazoo for most of the electrical age any inelasticity comes directly from existing regulation. The definition of market inelasticity is that changes in price cause a relatively small change in marginal demand; go double the price of electricity and watch industrial customers shit their pants and scramble to a) find a new provider or b) build their own electrical capacity. As I said above, the power market, even the retail power market, isn't all fridges and xboxes; price changes do effect demand. Any dampning of that action is directly attributable to gov't regulation.

      It takes many years to build a power plant...

      Depending on the plant you can do it in as little as two years...

      and most communities in US does not want power plant near their homes.

      [which is caused by regulation, cough cough]

      HOW THE HECK IS DEREGULATION GOING TO FIX THAT???

      In California's case it would have allowed the distribution companies (i.e. the customer facing power entities) to purchase their power wholesale from somewhere other than the "pool", whose prices were mandated by (drum roll please) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA!

      Again, since you have now dodged the question three times: how do you explain the UK's 10+ years of power deregulation, PA's open power markets, et al not exploding in a California like mess? According to your theory Pittsburgh should have a power system on par with Bagdad's by now.
    33. Re:Free wi-fi is important by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      The wholesale market is quite elastic. IF distribution companies had the right to make their wholesale purchases from anyone instead of the state run "pool" when Enron pulled their "we have maintenance issues" BS and cut supply the distributors could have just given Enron the finger and purchased their power from elsewhere (lets not forget, if they weren't forced to sell their power generation in the first place they wouldn't have been so beholden to the "pool"). That is the free market at work.

      This is BS. It is completely opposite of what happened. California bought most of the energy it needed through its distributors. But the system relies on spot market (i.e. FREE MARKET) to support addtional demand spikes. Enron decided to take advantage of this situation by cornering the spot market and driving it up. Just like how some stock speculators drive up the prices by buying up shares of a company with limited float (ALL FREE MARKET STUFF).

      Again, since you have now dodged the question three times: how do you explain the UK's 10+ years of power deregulation, PA's open power markets, et al not exploding in a California like mess? According to your theory Pittsburgh should have a power system on par with Bagdad's by now.

      Correlation does not equal causation. Just because I eat McDonalds, but haven't had a heart attck, does not mean that Big Macs are good for you.

      However, for your information...

      Since FERC rules inaugurated electricity deregulation in 1996, similar price spikes have occurred in Illinois, Ohio, and New York. Even in Pennsylvania, considered the poster child for electricity deregulation, prices hit $930 a megawatt hour for brief periods in 1999. In June 2000, on a particularly hot day in New York City when a regional nuclear power plant was experiencing an "unplanned" power outage, the wholesale price of electricity soared twentyfold to $1,000 a megawatt hour, the state-imposed cap. More than $70 million flowed from city consumers to a half dozen energy companies on a single day.

      When you have an inelastic market, spot control of prices is inevitiable, even in a completely free market. My argument is NOT that deregulation GUARANTEES fraud, but deregulation does not mean that it is free from fraud. Fraud can happen any time when you have a very inelastic market.

      Depending on the plant you can do it in as little as two years...

      I'll tell you what. If you can find an example, I will buy you an Xbox 360. And I don't mean from ground breaking to operation, I mean decision of building a power plant to operation. Please, it takes 5+ years just to go through planning and permits for a project this size.

      and most communities in US does not want power plant near their homes. [which is caused by regulation, cough cough]

      Why don't you stick to one argument? Regulating price and zoning laws are completely different topics.

      Oh, and now you are saying all regulations are bad? Are you one of those ultra-libertarian freaks? I don't know about you but I don't want an old-style power plant that generates huge plumes of black smoke near my neighborhood. But I guess we would have no problem getting permission for where you live.

      While we are at it, why stop there? Why don't we just chuck all environmental laws? Who spend money on expensive filters and clean chambers when you can build coal firing plants on the cheapside? So what if it causes a little acid rain and smog. Who cares if the nearby river is so polluted you can even step in it (see: China). it's free society, right? All regulations are bad, right?

      Pathetic...

    34. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1
      What difference do you think you can make? One single man in all this madness.

      If you die, it's gonna be for nothing.

      There's not some other world out there where everything's gonna be OK.

      There's just this one.

      Just this rock.
    35. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Yet they both busted their rears so that my siblings and I would have better lives, and I work hard so that my children will have an even better opportunity."

      Why? If it is so important that all of us work hard, then your parents should have done absolutely nothing for you and your siblings, and you should be doing nothing for your children. You should work for your lifestyle as hard as your parents had to (or moreso, if you expect a better standard of living than they had), otherwise your parents are only harming you by giving you a hand up.

    36. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      This is BS. It is completely opposite of what happened. California bought most of the energy it needed through its distributors. But the system relies on spot market (i.e. FREE MARKET) to support addtional demand spikes. Enron decided to take advantage of this situation by cornering the spot market and driving it up. Just like how some stock speculators drive up the prices by buying up shares of a company with limited float (ALL FREE MARKET STUFF).

      What, are you just making stuff up now? Go read the regulations as they were circa 2000. Purchasing by the distribution companies had to be made through the state run pool. That simple. It was not a FREE MARKET by any definition of the phrase.

      Since FERC rules inaugurated electricity deregulation in 1996, similar price spikes have occurred in Illinois, Ohio, and New York. Even in Pennsylvania, considered the poster child for electricity deregulation, prices hit $930 a megawatt hour for brief periods in 1999. In June 2000, on a particularly hot day in New York City when a regional nuclear power plant was experiencing an "unplanned" power outage, the wholesale price of electricity soared twentyfold to $1,000 a megawatt hour, the state-imposed cap. More than $70 million flowed from city consumers to a half dozen energy companies on a single day.

      BUT, where these fraud? Or are you claiming each and every unplanned outage by any sort of industrial plant constitues malfeaseanse? (If so you're dumb as a stump) In never claimed that prices don't fluctuate, supply and demand dictate that, but how is that proof that there is a systematic fraud being perpitrated?

      When you have an inelastic market, spot control of prices is inevitiable, even in a completely free market. My argument is NOT that deregulation GUARANTEES fraud, but deregulation does not mean that it is free from fraud. Fraud can happen any time when you have a very inelastic market.

      And I was claiming that it GUARANTEES the market to be fraud free? No. But, I still stand by the statement that a free market helps mitigate anyone trying to pull it off. If California had a truely deregulated market Enron wouldn't have been able to pull off what they did; distributers would have just switched to a different producer on a proper spot market (not the convoluted version the California state gov't foisted upon the state). Also, you still haven't shown how the electrical markets is so "inelastic."

      I'll tell you what. If you can find an example, I will buy you an Xbox 360. And I don't mean from ground breaking to operation, I mean decision of building a power plant to operation. Please, it takes 5+ years just to go through planning and permits for a project this size.

      State the terms. When does the clock start (concept selection? permit application? ground breaking) and when does the clock end (first power? achieving nameplate capacity? handing over to "operations?)

      Oh, and now you are saying all regulations are bad? Are you one of those ultra-libertarian freaks? I don't know about you but I don't want an old-style power plant that generates huge plumes of black smoke near my neighborhood. But I guess we would have no problem getting permission for where you live.

      Nope. I've been saying from post one that the California power crisis was not caused by deregulation. You have yet to prove otherwise. Everything else is you just begging the question...

      Pathetic...

      You took the words right out of my mouth.

    37. Re:Free wi-fi is important by labratuk · · Score: 1
      One year I calculated my total tax burden to be over 60%

      You poor soul! You should really get on to Human Rights Watch straight away.

      I mean, why should you let the evil government get in the way, seeing as you've managed to rise to the top of the world all on your own with nobody's help? They're always out to screw hard working people like yourself!

      Can't stick around and chat, my Dad has to pick me up in his SUV.
      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    38. Re:Free wi-fi is important by mmmiiikkkeee · · Score: 1

      Hate speech. Who doesnt' hate hate speech?

      i though for a second that you said 'who doesnt hate speech'... i was gona be like i am with u on that one.... now what the hell where u saying??

    39. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Zoyd · · Score: 1

      being black or asian [...] has nothing to do with the ability to use the internet.

      Blacks, as a hereditary racial trait, have low g-factor strengths (low IQs). Therefore, blacks are poorly adapted to the task of employing technology.

    40. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Parkaman · · Score: 1

      "Imagine if electricity was not a public utility but a service offered by two or three price-gouging regional monopolies. A quick comparison of US broadband penetration and Europe's (largely) socialised system demonstrates why these sorts of projects are needed." You mean... like natural gas?

      --
      "It's entirely personal, though at one remove."
    41. Re:Free wi-fi is important by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      Um... yes they do, or rather *I* have done so. I worked for a company porting filtering software up to high end routers so that it could be filtered en masse. We could filter based on an amazing array of details, and could even intelligently filter some content, such as if the sites content was unknown to the filter DB but has text cuss words, or images the machine's neural net thought were porn. Most companies only turned on the porn filter, but we could filter on shopping, political parties, news, etc... This was all back 5 years ago, so I can imagine what that device can do these days.

    42. Re:Free wi-fi is important by dangitman · · Score: 1
      What? People are going to RELIGIOUS sites? Hasn't anyone heard of the seperation of church and state? If someone wants to cyber-pray let them pay for their own access.

      I think you have it backwards. The government can't restrict freedom of speech - but a private company can. Your scenario seems more likely in a 100% private system.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    43. Re:Free wi-fi is important by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      Again, I'm not talking about what *should* happen, I'm talking about what people will try to do. Yes, it may be unconstitutional, but municipalities will try it nevertheless, and time and money will be wasted duking it out in the court system. Look at the hulabaloo that goes on with respect to the name of "christmas trees" and what can and cannot be taught in public schools. If its controled by a government one or more group of activists will want to control how its used.

  7. wireless fidelity?! by enrico_suave · · Score: 1

    *snort* when will they learn...

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
    1. Re:wireless fidelity?! by g0at · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's stupid jargon. What is the wireless faithful to?

      -b

    2. Re:wireless fidelity?! by xappax · · Score: 1

      WiFi... those are two very important things to have in an access point. That's the most wireless quality fidelity (WiFi) you can get. But it won't sound like this without the TK421 modification. That'll up it another 4 or 5... quads per....channel. But that's technical talk, that doesn't concern you. We do that here in the store, very low price.

  8. Hopefully... by Tahir+Azhar · · Score: 1

    ..the wireless infrastructure is being installed to be hurricane resistant.

    1. Re:Hopefully... by garrett714 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree... how are they going to ensure that the wireless system continues to work in the event of disaster when even the levees wouldn't hold up, things that have been designed by engineers. I don't see how a wireless antenna is really gonna stand up to 150mph winds when houses are crumbling to the ground.

    2. Re:Hopefully... by yuretz · · Score: 1

      But floods are still dangerous. Network flood attacks at least...

  9. FREE WI-FI IN NEW ORLEANS!!!! by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...for all five residents.

    1. Re:FREE WI-FI IN NEW ORLEANS!!!! by fembots · · Score: 1

      Why five?

    2. Re:FREE WI-FI IN NEW ORLEANS!!!! by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      Well, I was counting Ray Nagin, and his four man entourage.

    3. Re:FREE WI-FI IN NEW ORLEANS!!!! by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the hard-core rat bastards who won't leave until the roaches give up the ghost.

      You're also forgetting the looters. And I don't mean Nagin, FEMA, or the contractors, although they certainly do qualify.

  10. Wifi in an unhabited place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they need wifi there? Is there anybody still living in the swamps?

  11. Another thing for NO to mis-manage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Much of the equipment has been donated, but New Orleans will own and operate the network.

    Great yet another service for the NO government to screw up. They've shown they can't organize anything, how will they be able to handle city wide WiFi?

    How long after it is a total flop before they start blaming Bush for NE WiFi not working? I say less than 1 day.

    1. Re:Another thing for NO to mis-manage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha yea, fuck em!

  12. Yes, but does it work underwater? by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cool! Now New Orleans residents will have the connectivity they need in order to email an SOS to FEMA, so they can come rescue them!

    This is much a better solution than spending that money on something as trivial as a safe levee system or housing for homeless people. This free wi-fi is actually working out quite well for them.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Yes, but does it work underwater? by garrett714 · · Score: 1

      I understand that his comment is sarcastic, but +3 troll? C'mon, he brings up some good points, this money should be spent on new levees and housing instead of "Free WiFi for all"

      Can you imagine how pissed off you would be if you were in New Orleans right now and hear they are giving out free WiFi but your family still has nowhere to sleep for the night?

    2. Re:Yes, but does it work underwater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why all the cynicism?

      I live and work in New Orleans. I'm writing this post from my home office in New Orleans. (so I guess that would make 6 people in NOLA now, right?) There are people that are trying to make things better here - for the present and the future.

      My cable internet access is spotty at best. A reliable, wireless solution provided by the city has many benefits - as mentioned by multiple posters.

      How about finding some other down-and-out situation to practice your sarcasm on? New Orleans has been kicked around enough.

  13. Don't they worry about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't they worry about flooding the public wavelenghts?

  14. $100 Laptops by anandpur · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now start distributing $100 laptops to poor ppl.
    http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

    1. Re:$100 Laptops by wde · · Score: 1

      The only thing owed to the poor is equal the opportunity to make a better standard of living for themselves. I think New Orleans has already demonstrated to the world what the end result of the welfare state is. Yes, I'd like to see cheaper hardware/software/tv's/cars/whatever but equally and for everybody. The "poor" deserve no special treatment -- a free ride only breeds apathy and complacency. You want a laptop? Get a job. You say "I can't get a job because I'm uneducated"? Tough -- life doesn't guarantee anything. Do something about it for your CHILDREN and teach them to be better than you. Teach them to articulate and to value hard work instead of dressing like thugs and shouting "discrimination!" when you don't condone their ebonics bullshit. Mostly, teach them toget off their asses and find a bus when you've got two days warning that a Category 5 hurricane is creeping your way and not to wait for the Government to come bail your sorry ass out.

      As for the children and elderly caught in this tradgedy I am truly sorry but I'm tired of hearing about the "tradgedy of the poor" in New Atlantis and elsewhere. You're only owed what you earn. Period. Laptops included. Walk your poor ass to a librabry.

  15. Brings new meaning to "wardriving" by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    Well, since no one can actually live in the New Orleans area, I guess we could all just drive through with our laptops...

    1. Re:Brings new meaning to "wardriving" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Well, since no one can actually live in the New Orleans area..."

      Well, according to the traffic down here...it is coming back. Trouble is...so many jobs, but, no housing for people to work them. They can't get hourly workers here to work the fast food or other jobs on that level.

      It is trying to come to life back here again...but, it is tough. I'm actually lucky...I live on the edge of the Lakeview area...I had 7ft of water at my place, but, I was renting the top floor of a house...my stuff was completely spared. However, they don't predict power to my area for another month...even then, they have to rewire most of the house..and get inspected and permits before they can turn the power on to the house itself. And gas? Well, they say that was so messed up, there is NO estimate on when that will be hooked up. Right now..I think it would be optimistic to get back in there by March...for now, I'm trying not to wear my welcome out too much at any one of my friends' homes. Hoping to get a fema trailer in the near future....

      It is quite a surreal life down here...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Brings new meaning to "wardriving" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I guess in New Orleans wardiving is a more appropriate term.

  16. Future Emergency Communications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps this can be used to provide a backup communications system when the next hurricane hits? After watching a couple of documentaries on my local PBS affiliate, one of the key points of failure in the emergency response was a lack of organized (technical) communications between state, local, and federal agencies.

  17. Even Though by GmAz · · Score: 0

    Even though the idea is rather diturbing, just think of the people that are in New Orleans. It is a good thing for those who have businesses open, though a few but will grow, and families that don't have telephone up yet. At least they can get news and communicate with people. At least the equipment was also donated and not bought with funds for rebuilding/rescue.

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
  18. already taking tips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They've obviously already started taking tips from Mike Brown's disaster consulting company.

  19. What about the ISP's? by xoip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not only have they lost customers and equipment...now they have to compete with the Gov't...so much for free enterprise

    1. Re:What about the ISP's? by furiouscommie · · Score: 1
      Not only have they lost customers and equipment...now they have to compete with the Gov't...so much for free enterprise

      Yes, because our poor, struggling local ISPs were so horribly hurt by the hurricanes... . The government is providing a service that they REFUSE to provide, I don't see how that stifles free enterprise.

    2. Re:What about the ISP's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition is the definition of free enterprise. You capitalists are a bunch of whining sissies, I swear.

  20. New Orleans needs this. Phones are still out. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the city still doesn't have phone service. Getting enough WiFi up that people can use VoIP and get some basic web services will be a big help.

    1. Re:New Orleans needs this. Phones are still out. by u16084 · · Score: 0

      +wifi +144kps = you wanna call who? try again, good luck trying to make a call.

      --
      -- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
  21. Quoi? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That money would produce a safer city with more jobs if it was left to the citizens.

    Last I checked, in this country, the government is composed of -- gasp -- citizens, not space aliens from Uranus. At what point did Americans forget the "of, by, and for the people" routine? Why should a state or federal authority be telling the citizens of a town that they can't do whatever they blinking well please as far as public works projects? So the _citizens_ get together and say, golly, we can all chip in ten bucks and we'll have a wonderful benefit for our community that is worth far more than ten bucks to each citizen.

    What's next? Gee, sorry Podunksville, you can't build a public park with a toilet. You need to sell the land off to a private developer so you can have the privilege of paying to sit on the grass or take a leak.

    I don't see how this is any different.

    1. Re:Quoi? by ksheff · · Score: 3, Funny

      the government is composed of -- gasp -- citizens, not space aliens from Uranus.

      having dealt with some of the local govt employees, I wouldn't be sure of that.
      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:Quoi? by Eslyjah · · Score: 1

      Here's what I understand your argument to be: municipalities are just groups of people who live near each other, and groups of people who live near each other should be able to set up a wifi network if they wish to do so.

      Here's the flaw in what you're saying: very few policy decisions (even in municipalities) are unanimous, so it is likely that there is a subgroup that does not wish to participate in the project. You are advocating coercing these people to participate, or at least to fund everyone else's participation. I think this coercion is immoral.

      Furthermore, I guess I can understand why people spend so much time scheming to get someone else to pay for what they consume--it's human nature--but a moment's reflection will show that it's pathetic. If you consume internet access, why shouldn't you pay for it? Why should you get it for free at the expense of one of your neighbors?

    3. Re:Quoi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's make a deal then. Take away government's weapons, and prohibit them from initiating force of any kind, and then I'll gladly chip in for some of your social programs.

      Of course, that would mean I'd actually have a choice, wouldn't it? And that's exactly what you don't want, isn't it?

    4. Re:Quoi? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about any government project. Is the decision to build roads unanimous? No. Is it fair to force someone who doesn't own a car to pay for road maintenance? Arguably, no. But that's the way governments work - not everyone agrees with every decision. Half of the voting public wanted someone else to be President in 2004, but the decision was made and we all have to live with it.

      If you don't want to pay for your neighbors' internet access, you have the same rights as someone who doesn't want to pay for his neighbors' roads, or health care, or farm subsidies, or wars: either organize some like-minded people to elect representatives whose views are closer to your own, or find a different country that won't expect you to pay for those things.

      To argue against this "coercion", however, is to argue for a libertarian utopia that's about as realistic as the communist utopia. If you don't want to pay taxes to any government but you still want to stay on this planet, you'll have to live on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    5. Re:Quoi? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Most road maintenance is paid for from taxes specifically on automotobiles and the fuel they consume. Joe Schwinn and his Ten Speed pals pay for almost none of the road they roll their bikes on.

      --
      resigned
    6. Re:Quoi? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      All right, I'll give you that, but (1) it was just an example, there are countless other things that the government provides and not everyone uses and (2) even gasoline taxes end up charging some people for roads they never use.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    7. Re:Quoi? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Here's the flaw in what you're saying: very few policy decisions (even in municipalities) are unanimous, so it is likely that there is a subgroup that does not wish to participate in the project. You are advocating coercing these people to participate, or at least to fund everyone else's participation. I think this coercion is immoral.

        So do you have a better idea as to how to get anything done?

        Not to flame you, but there will *always* be opposition to *every task* ever undertaken. You must be pretty young :)

        If you consume internet access, why shouldn't you pay for it? Why should you get it for free at the expense of one of your neighbors?

        How's that? Usually local tax money that would be used to pay for a municipalities wifi is going to come from locally generated tax money - ie, property taxes and similar. If you *live* in the municipality, even if you're just paying rent, you are still paying in on property taxes. So where's the "free from the neighbor" thing come from with a city gov sponsored wifi?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    8. Re:Quoi? by Eslyjah · · Score: 1

      Of course there will always be opposition to every task government takes. What I am saying is that we should recognize that government is coercive by nature. Obviously, unless we want anarchy (which I do not), government is going to have to be coercive to do certain governmental things: establish a police force, administer courts, etc. These are things that only governments can do (there is some interesting research going into private law, but in my view, it's not really feasible). When government begins to use its vast coercive power on things that are not explicitly governmental (wifi, or cookies for everyone!), we have a problem. In the case of wifi, it's petty tyranny.

      I am an economist. I fully understand that even if you rent housing, you pay property tax. But that's not what I was getting at. Look at it this way. Suppose it costs $10 per user to set up wifi. Suppose half the people in a town use the wifi and the town charges each resident $5. The town meets expenses and does not make a profit. Suppose further that you live next door to a poor old widow who does not own a computer, and does not even know how to use one. Her $5 tax is going to pay for half of your service. Half of your service is free, because she was coerced into paying the tax (if she does not pay the tax, she goes to jail or her property gets confiscated). My argument is this: think of the poor old widow. Don't tax her to pay for luxuries that you want to enjoy. Do you really think it's right to tax someone for something they will not use and which government alone does not need to provide?

    9. Re:Quoi? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Don't tax her to pay for luxuries that you want to enjoy. Do you really think it's right to tax someone for something they will not use and which government alone does not need to provide?

        So basically you think that local widows, at least, shouldn't pay taxes in order to support their local libraries/information networks? Do you honestly think 'she' wouldn't benefit from them down the road?

        I live in on of the few states in the US that doesn't support a state income tax. I like it that way. That does't mean that taxes don't have legitimate purposes, or that there are ones I'm not willing to pay for.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    10. Re:Quoi? by Zoyd · · Score: 1

      It takes less road to carry bike traffic, and bikes do less damage to the road.

    11. Re:Quoi? by Eslyjah · · Score: 1

      Right. You and I disagree on what the coercive power of government should be used for. I say only the things that government, by its nature, can solely provide, and you are happy for government to provide other services as well. I think your position is immoral, and you think my position is crazy because who doesn't like libraries? In answer to your question, I think libraries, information networks, etc. should be paid for by people who use them. Charge an annual fee to use the library. What's so outrageous about that?

      I agree with you that some taxes are necessary, and we should pay them (maybe even happily). But I want my tax money to buy things that I can't buy elsewhere. I can get internet access somewhere else.

    12. Re:Quoi? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Bikes also require a higher-quality more expensive road than automobiles and trucks.

      --
      resigned
    13. Re:Quoi? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      In answer to your question, I think libraries, information networks, etc. should be paid for by people who use them. Charge an annual fee to use the library. What's so outrageous about that?

        Because there are an awful lot of people (kids, students, poor people) who wouldn't be able to afford the fees. Now I don't think that access to books or information is a "right" but I do think that any responsible government that is really concerned about the well-being of it's citizens will ensure that such access is there. I don't think there's anything "immoral" about that; quite the contrary as a matter of fact.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    14. Re:Quoi? by Eslyjah · · Score: 1

      Then run it as a charity. That's the moral way to do it.

  22. The disaster isn't over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Contrary to what the government and the media would have us believe, New Orleans and the south in general is still a disaster area. New Orleans specifically still is, for the most part, the same as it was when Katrina hit. Alot of places more "important" for tourism and business have been cleaned up, but the other areas like the Ninth Ward still look like warzones. The State of Emergency may last for years.

    1. Re:The disaster isn't over... by Johnny+O · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Thanks for the tip - downloading ;-)

    2. Re:The disaster isn't over... by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. With only largely affluent white folks left in NOLA, the are now getting presents like community WiFi.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    3. Re:The disaster isn't over... by Flashbck · · Score: 1

      Ahem, I'm from New Orelans and I was there over thanksgiving and I do recall seeing lots of people that weren't largely affluent white folks. Why I would say that it's about 50/50 right now. Many of the "way below the poverty line" people have not returned, but they couldn't benefit from WiFi anyway, thay have no computers.

      Where exactly do you get your information?

    4. Re:The disaster isn't over... by lloydtesterman · · Score: 2, Funny

      umm, yes they do! and sneakers and tvs and beer and......

  23. Re:What about the ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't worry about it. They're making enough profits by overcharging the rest of us to make up for it.

  24. Interesting.. all the neg. and missing the point by maillemaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm surprised at all the negativity about this.

    I'm also suprised at the lack of debate at the /real/ meat in this article - the fact that the big ISPs have already lobbied in places to hobble the speed of such WiFi networks.

    I think this is going to become a huge issue as WiFi and WiMax take off.

    My subdivision has some 500 houses in it. If half of them get high speed internet in some form, at $50/month they are paying out some $12,500 a month collectively for high speed internet access.

    What if our subdivision decided to set up it's own WiFi network? Yeah, I can see the ISPs getting real nervous about this.

    Also, I can see Cell Phone companies getting VERY nervous about this. If WiFi internet access becomes free and widespread, you won't need the cellular network anymore to make wireless phone calls. Just a portable wireless IP phone.

    No wonder the big Telecom industries are out to squelch this.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  25. What I want to know is . . . by mmell · · Score: 2, Funny
    WHY is it illegal for municipalities to provide free (tax-supported) wi-fi? The only justification I've heard is that this will prevent private industry from being able to make a profit from providing this same service (which in this day and age IS a utility, not a luxury).

    Y'know, if the same mentality were applied to some existing government services . . .

    (Caller): Help! My house is on fire!

    (Phone voice): Do you have a FlameOut (tm) customer ID number?

    (Caller): No, but my house is burning! My children are in there--Please help me!

    (Phone voice): I'm sorry, but since you're not a FlameOut (tm) customer, I can't help you. However, we will be rolling our FlameOut (tm) Wagons to protect your neighbor, who I see is a subscriber in good standing. Thank you for notifying us of this condition and have a nice day.

    {CLICK}

    1. Re:What I want to know is . . . by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or with cops:

      "Muggers want to kill and rob you? Sure, we'll be on our way, just as soon as you pay up on your overdue bill."

      or:

      "Yes, there were gun toting maniacs in the streets shooting people, and yes some of those people were our customers. But since there were over 50 people in the vacinity, that technically makes it a riot, and they didn't have coverage for riots. Now if they'd signed up for our Premium Protection Plan, on the other hand...."

      This nice summary of privitization run amock was from a Punisher 2099 comic, of all things. So yes, Libertarians, taxes and public services can be a good thing.

    2. Re:What I want to know is . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't laugh, I remember reading that this is
      how fire service worked a long time ago...

    3. Re:What I want to know is . . . by Celandro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes.. 2000+ years ago..

      From http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog /2005/06/the_fire_truck.html

      In the early days of Rome a real estate investor/ extortionist named Crassus used a team of firefighters in an effective scheme. There was no public firefighting service at that time, so when a building was on fire, Crassus and his team would show up with their water pump. Before fighting the fire, Crassus would make a very low offer on the building, and to neighboring building owners. If the owners refused, Crassus let the building burn and spread to neighboring buildings, and would later make an even lower offer. If the owner agreed to sell the property, the firefighters would try to put the fire out. Crassus became very wealthy with this scheme, owned a good portion of the city of Rome, bought his way into political office, and ruled Rome as Triumvirate with Pompey and Julius Caesar. As Triumvirate, the area he ruled was centered in Syria, and extended over a wide region. Envisioning riches beyond belief and military glory, Crassus led an expedition against the Parthian Empire, in which he was killed and his legion was wiped out.

    4. Re:What I want to know is . . . by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, simple. Not everyone has a computer. Worse, those who don't have a computer are likely to be poor. So, the poor are paying more taxes with no benefit.

      Wait, I know what you're going to say: not everyone has a car, either. Right, but effective transportation does DIRECTLY lower the cost of consumption for everyone.

      I'm having trouble making a similar argument for free wi-fi.

    5. Re:What I want to know is . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor are not land owners, and in the cases where they are their property isn't worth much. In those cases where they are poor, land owners, and their property has much value then there are waivers and caps for property taxes. Poor people do have computers, by the way. They're relatively inexpensive devices with few recurring fees.

      One obvious public utility beyond saving these people from recurring broadband service fees is also that they can make long-distance communications without cost.

  26. Newsflash - NewOrleans Deploys AP's on levy walls. by alta · · Score: 1

    So when the levy breaks, no one will really care about the wifi, they'll be getting the hell out of town. And since the wifi will go down, they won't be distracted by silly things like Everquest.

    Now, for the EMS services, backup APs will all be installed on inflatable begnets. They only come on once their depth gauge reaches 4'.

    When the levy breaks... I'll have no place to stay

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  27. "Safe levee system" by Flying+pig · · Score: 2, Informative

    November Scientific American makes it clear that, owing to bad decisions made by the Army Corps of Engineers years ago, the timescale to solve the problems of New Orleans could be many years. Improving communications throughout the city will not make a significant dent in the funds available to solve the delta problems - which could run into tens of billions of dollars.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  28. And remember by ShatteredDream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the same New Orleans that had over 30% of its PD leave or actively engage in the unlawful activities plaguing it post-Katrina. This is the same New Orleans which is legendary for its corrupt local government and in a state that is almost synonymous with bad government to most southerners.

    Yet it's going to do a "good job" running WiFi. One of these days, the starry-eyed true believers will come to the painful realization that "democracy" has no proven track record on keeping governments working for the people and that local governments are one of the last groups you'd want to trust to run your communication network.

    Besides, let's just go ahead and put telescreens in our homes. It just blows my mind how anyone can in one breath whole-heartedly support government operation and/or ownership of the com. network and then complain about the Bush administration wiretapping us all a la 1984. Why not go ahead and put your toddler in a locked room with a dingo and then get self-righteously pissed off when your toddler gets mauled and eaten? Afterall, it's THEIR fault, right?

    Bullshit. You give the government control over the com. network on that scale and when your precious civil liberties go out the window, you'll be one of the few victims of bad government to legitimately laughed at by succeeding generations. The government will assert its sovereignty and say, "it's our network, use it our way or get off." Then you'll look around and there won't be any competition because your tax dollars subsidize the network to the point that the private sector cannot compete.

    All in the name of giving "poor" people (our poor are middle class by African standards) access to a network that all too often their volunary refusal to make use of their socialized education opportunities have rendered them incapable of exploiting.

    1. Re:And remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As oppose to privately owned mega-million dollar cooperations controlling the network?

    2. Re:And remember by SlashSquatch · · Score: 1

      Besides,
      It will be real hard for the maintainence guys to lean on their ammeters or wire strippers when they go out to fix the wifi points.

      --
      Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
    3. Re:And remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to shell out $50 a month to your local monopoly. Or you could encrypt your connections if it's that big of a deal to you.

    4. Re:And remember by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      That means I have to pay for my own corporate ISP *AND* I am forced to pay for half of your government one too. That way you can call yours "cheaper" because it is when you have a gun to other peoples heads making them pay the bill for you.

      Government solutions are almost always more expensive than even the worst monopolies. That being said, I see little evidence of any ISP monopolies, in fact it's a business I still see occassionally run by one man operations in their spare time.

  29. Unfortunately... by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

    ...due to mismanagement of funds, the New Orleans Wi-Fi system will only be able to withstand a CAT 2 slashdotting.

    --
    I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn I wish I still had mod points for this one. Not very often I laugh out loud at comments.

  30. AM Radio by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I was involved in a week long power outage in Norfolk are after hurricane Isabel (2003) I found battery powered AM radio to be the best source of information. The announcers worked overtime and did a great job of letting us know what was going one. NOLA has WWl which can be picked up over much of the US - I listen to it to get first hand info on whats happening there. It's simple, cheap, and works.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:AM Radio by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      gezus, three typos:

      >Norfolk are after -> Norfolk area after
      >what was going one -> what was going on
      >NOLA has WWl -> NOLA has WWL

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  31. But rudiments need to be in place! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    I have some extended family that's not well off. (Think: low-income housing) They want to "have it all" but don't at all have the resources to do it well. (Think: Pentium-100, Win95)

    Using the cheapest ISP imaginable. It's amazing to me how much time they'll spend just trying to get online, and how much !@#!@# they'll put up with their painfully slow, virus-laden computer, just for the status and joy of "being online".

    They put up with the unbelievable to save $40. (Cost of antivirus) They do not understand the fundamentals of computing, nor do they have the resources to pay somebody who does.

    It's a Spammer's paradise, this "free" municipal Wifi. How do communities prevent this from happening?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:But rudiments need to be in place! by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Can you hook 'em up with AVG anti-virus? It's free for them. i think there's another free AV package too.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:But rudiments need to be in place! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should introduce them to AVG, or some other free antivirus software? Or even a less virus-prone OS...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  32. Wow, doesn't this just... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    New Orleans will deploy a city wide wi-fi network with free public access.

    Wow, this just makes me want to come back in live in a crime-ridden city with the worst police force and most corrupt politicians in the country, x-number of feet below sea level protected by dikes and levies constructed by the lowest bidder. Yup, free Wi-Fi will certainly make all the difference here.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Wow, doesn't this just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no idea what schizophrenia is. Your sig isn't funny at all. Your sig is less funny (and irritating) to anyone who knows what schizophrenia is. Your sig is offensive to people with schizophrenia.
      Educate yourself and change your sig.

  33. Restriction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why the hell is there a 144Kbps restriction?

    1. Re:Restriction? by BushCheney08 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why the hell is there a 144Kbps restriction?

      Duh! It's because someone was paid a nice chunk of change to put it there.

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    2. Re:Restriction? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there is a set duration on that speed. i.e. over how long is it measured. If it is not codified, then they can easily offer 144Kb/s as an average speed when measured over the next 50 years (per computer). Any computer that downloads more than 26TB is kicked off until 2055...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Restriction? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Why the hell is there a 144Kbps restriction?"

      Two words: BellSouth and Cox. We're talking about the best government money can buy!

  34. my 4 y.o. daughter by ericcantona · · Score: 1

    quite right.
    for some reason something my 4 y.o. daughter knows that seems beyond US city planners:
    "the foolish man built his house upon the sand ... the wise man built his house upon the rocks"
    seriously; who on earth builds a city below w/level next to the sea ?!

    --
    When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea
    1. Re:my 4 y.o. daughter by Orodreth · · Score: 1
  35. Priorities??????? by acoustix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me they have more important goals than providing free wifi at this point. I can think of several:

    -schools
    -police
    -electricity
    -water
    -sewage

    I could go on, but you get the point.

    -Ncik

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Priorities??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you think you go about getting, servicing, maintaining these priorities? It's called "communication". I think WiFi in an emergency is an EXCELLENT idea, which allows people to communicate about their needs, concerns, priorities, etc.

      Or do you prefer they just shout from their rooftops?

    2. Re:Priorities??????? by acoustix · · Score: 1
      "I think WiFi in an emergency is an EXCELLENT idea, which allows people to communicate about their needs, concerns, priorities, etc."

      I suppose you're right. I mean look at what happened after the hurricane. Everyone was able to communicate using wifi after EVERYTHING was destroyed. Oh wait, the wireless infrastructure was damaged too. Oh well... I'm sure that all of the extrememly poor people that stayed behind had computers with wireless access. What? They didn't? Well I guess they were poor. Maybe the city should give away free wifi AND computers. That'll fix all of New Orleans' problems!

      -Nick

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    3. Re:Priorities??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't Iraq, man.

      The state is taking over the schools, which alone is worth the cost of Katrina to me and any other New Orleanian who knows the problems start and are perpetuated by the school system here.

      What is better than a mesh net over the city for communications, business, etc? Not much. This will help, and if anyone can see that it is Nagin who is a true businessman at heart.

      I am sick of reading all of these negative comments from people here who don't know the first thing about New Orleans other than it has "the Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street".

    4. Re:Priorities??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      acoustix, I think you don't realize the usefulness of this free wifi access. Moreover the question is not "wifi access" OR "schools AND police AND electricity...", it's just that they decided to go with "wifi access AND schools AND police AND electricity...". In other words, see wifi as an EXTRA help, it can't hurt to deploy it, don't you think ?

    5. Re:Priorities??????? by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Dude, these days people are practically throwing away perfectly good computers. Hell, sometimes they are throwing away perfectly good, working computers. If someone is poor and has no computer, they aren't trying hard enough to get one. Might not be top of the line speed demon, but you don't need that for the basics. Circuit city and Walmart may be selling their computers for hundreds of dollars, doesn't mean that poor people have to get their computers there.

    6. Re:Priorities??????? by acoustix · · Score: 1
      "acoustix, I think you don't realize the usefulness of this free wifi access. Moreover the question is not "wifi access" OR "schools AND police AND electricity...", it's just that they decided to go with "wifi access AND schools AND police AND electricity...". In other words, see wifi as an EXTRA help, it can't hurt to deploy it, don't you think ?"

      I realize the usefulness of free Internet access. However, I also realize the priorities when a city has been destroyed. The fact is that whatever money is being spent on free wifi should be spent in other areas. This is what happens when the government gives a blank check for disaster recovery. The same people that were bitching about the federal deficit are now trying to pave the streets of New Orleans with gold.

      -Nick

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  36. I also live in Hurricane country. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I do understand. But "Frankly, if we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years..."
    Those land off the coast doesn't belong to the states it belongs to the federal government. That being said I am all for LA and Mississippi getting it to rebuild.
    Levee's for a CAT 5? Which CAT 5? 195mph? or 250mph? CAT 5 is doesn't have a maximum so saying it will withstand a CAT 5 is sort of wishful thinking.

    Having been through 3 hurricanes in the last 13 months I have a clue to how big a mess it is. We got lucky in that we didn't get any major flooding or storm surge but the weeks without power, the destroyed homes, and so on is enough. We still have people in Fema trailers from last year storms trying to get there homes fixed.
    Good luck.
    Get a new Mayor and Gov. They sucked. Our Mayor had our school buses prepositioned at the shelters to evacuate everyone last year and did the same this year. They also used them to evacuate anyone that was too poor to leave on their own before the storm. Also we have every assisted care facility and hospital as part of our emergence action plan. Not to mention we had food and water and sanitation at all of our shelters and enough shelter space outside of surge zones. We had not had a direct hit here in 40+ years before last year but they still had prepared better than New Orleans and the State of LA. I know this because a friend of mine works at our EOC.
    BTW my local church sent about 150 people the help in Mississippi. Other groups from our faith went to LA as well. I believe we sent about 5000 people in total and a few million in cash. Of course not a month after we went we got hit by Wilma.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by pete6677 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Get a new Mayor and Gov.
       
      I second that idea. Local officials that are competent and actually WANT to serve the people will do a lot more good than hoping the feds decide to do more. Besides, it wasn't Bush's job to create an evacuation plan for New Orleans, it was ultimately the mayor's job and he failed miserably. Of course, getting new officials may require a temporary willingness to vote Republican until the local Democratic party gets cleaned up.

    2. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually it was also the Gov's responsibility. New Orleans doesn't have enough space outside of flood zones to house shelters. The towns around New Orleans should have helped provide shelter space but from what I saw they didn't do anything helpful and a good amount that was harmful.
      Just imagine what Florida has gone through. I have actually lost count of how many storms have hit us in that last two seasons. I have another friend that works for Florida Power and Light as a lineman. He is about to have a break down. They just got off 16 hour seven days a week shifts.
      Our state and local governments did okay but we really need to light a fire under or Public Service Commission. FPL as a company has not done well with maintaining the infrastructure here. Many poles where rotten and snapped.
      What gets me is I feel everyone is forgetting the people in Mississippi. I was there and frankly it looked a war zone. We spent days clearing trees. tearing out drywall, and what ever we where asked to do and frankly it didn't make a dent.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by 70Bang · · Score: 0, Troll



      (Regardless of party) I remember seeing a mayor of one town|city who was notified his house was a pancake. He got a ride there, looked at it, then went back to work. He said his personal interests were secondary to the job he'd been hired to perform and he'd return to deal with his house & possessions when everyone else was taken care of.

      I really don't care which party chooses to assign those qualities to their members, having someone like that taking care of their constituents is enough to make everyone wait in line to vote for hours if there's a single voting machine just to make sure they remain in office.

      Aside from a few exceptions and having connections with people who have been elevated to the federal level, most party affiliations have little to do with one's abilities and outlook, let alone what kind of job they do until they get to at least the state level (Governor or State Legislature, regardless of which House).

      What I do have concerns about is paying for people who live in Hurricane Alley and want someone [else] to pay to rebuild, pay to rebuild, pay to rebuild, pay to rebuild, pay to rebuild...pivot! pivot! pivot! (Friends) the news keeps referring to insurance companies or the Federal Gov't. Either way, it's everyone else paying. Individuals pay the insurance premiums which are used to cover other people and the Federal Gov't is funded by individuals paying taxes. I live in an area which is a reasonably large magnet for tornadoes. If my house is flattened more than once, I think I'm going to get the hint it's time to reexamine my living situation. The attitude of, "This is where I want to live and if it's interrupted for any reason, someone's going to pay to restore it so I'm happy." is a bit more than I can stomach and I don't know that the family-sized bottle of Pepto is going to alleviate that. I also live in an area where prior to purchasing a house, you are required to check to see if you live in a flood plane and you're made aware of where you stand financially (insurance-wise) as a result. I've got news for the people of the South: you live in a flood plane. If your insurance premiums were made to properly reflect this, kwitcherbitchin'. It's the price you pay for living in a warm place year 'round. I live in a place which has four seasons each year. And there's a price to be paid for that and I pay it.
      Last night, the NBC National News said some of the larger insurance companies are dropping people who live in areas affected by certain types of weather - I believe they were referring to locations where make sure you've got hip waders handy four or five times each year. The only problem with that is the gov't is then expected to bail them out. Either way, someone else pays for their lifestyle.

      As far as the poor who are suffering, a lot of people have been presented with opportunities to live in other locations with a decent period (multiple months) of rent or mortgage amnesty to permit them to set their lives up with the donations of goods and permit them to find a job.

      This may be apocryphal, but it's been said one guy was shown a trailer for temporary housing and when he asked where the tv was, he was told there wasn't one, so he refused the housing. That sounds a little too fishy to be true, but if it is [true], then someone (him) needs to wait in line for an attitude adjustment with a 2x4.


      Required skills for job applicants are are getting stiffer

    4. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I think there was failure on ALL levels of govt. I really think IMHO, that the Gov. was largely responsible for the problems in the immediate days after Katrina. She would not federalize the situation in a quick manner...that kept Guard and Military people out of NOLA, which could have kept order better...

      While the Mayor made his share of mistakes...he's not the one to blame in all this. He was here during the storm...and all the problems. He stayed to try to help while other left the city.

      Frankly, I thought the evacuation was a tremedous success. I'm amazed that we got near 80% of the people out...especially considering we had only 2 days notice really...and there is only one road (literally) out of New Orleans...I-10 E or W. Ok..you could take Airline Hwy too...but, that's it. There are just some people that WILL NOT LEAVE...you can't make them. If you wanted to leave...you could find a way. Sure, there were lots of busses left here...but, who the hell would stay behind to drive them out with people who were too stupid to leave when they were told to leave?

      I'm sorry...but, some people are too stupid or stubborn to leave. And this is a free country...they cannot MAKE you leave...and plenty of people would not.

      You've got generations of people here that did not know what a direct hit of a hurricane would do. We've had nothing but false alarms in the past few years...and many people never thought it would hit them. Me? I left with every storm. I got my dog out, and met friends out somewhere to stay in a hotel for a few nights and come back. But, many people down here...cannot afford to take off work, much less pay for a hotel room for themselves and family. So..they stayed thinking another false alarm. But, people like all these...the mayor, the gov. or even the president of the US..cannot get everyone out. It isn't the governments responsibility to get you out or take care of you.

      They did give us warning...but, after that...it is up to you to leave.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by WorLord · · Score: 1

      "Levee's for a CAT 5? Which CAT 5? 195mph? or 250mph? CAT 5 is doesn't have a maximum so saying it will withstand a CAT 5 is sort of wishful thinking."

      In theory, you're right, but practically speaking, there must be half a million ways to figure out what to build.

      A really good starting point would be to do the thirty minutes of research required and figure out what the biggest storm surge and highest wind speeds reported to have made landfall in the area (or, any of the gulf coast in general) were, and then plan for more than that. I.e., if the record-holding storm pushed 25' of storm-surge flooding into the Lake, the new levies should probably be build to withstand a 35' storm surge. Similarly, I believe the highest windspeed recorded was Camille's landfall (265mph in Mississippi coastal areas), so building codes should obviously be upped to withstand 275-300mph sustained winds.

      Also, waiting for FEMA to assign new house-height standards is going to be functionally useless. It will be useful when it comes to getting a new insurance policy, sure, but when it comes to keeping your home safe, you'll be sorely disappointed. I know that in Gentilly, most houses got 5-9' of water (even though they are elevated 3' off the ground). FEMA's new standards in that area are 2-3' higher than before, which will get you insurance but still leave your house destroyed when the next storm blows through. Your best bet, again, is to surpass the record flood(s) that have hit in history: find out where the Katrina water line in your house is, and build 5-10' higher than that. You'll definitely fall within even the newest government guidelines, and actually do something constructive towards making sure you won't need aid in the future as well.

      That is, if you stay in an area where this sort of thing is 100% likely to happen again, which I think is just a silly idea. (Hence, I moved). But I realize that some people are really attached to it, so I've been helping my friends and family who've chosen to stay make house plans that will last through a storm worse than Katrina.

    6. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      Get a new Mayor and Gov The really sad part of all this is that mayor Nagins and Gov Blanco is probably the best that LA has had in a very very long time (by a wide margin).

      This is a state that has been ravaged by institutional corruptions for decades. I think LA easily takes the corruption cake in US. Nagins and Blanco are the first mayor and Gov combo to seriously tackle the corruption problems.

      If there are more able people who can lead this state, they would have been found already.

      This is also a reason why I don't believe billions of federal dollars should be spend rebuilding all of New Orleans. Why rebuild something that was so corrupt to begin with?

    7. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Why rebuild something that was so corrupt to begin with?"

      Yeah...we do have a corner on corruption....Oh wait, that last Congressman taking bribes this week was from CA.

      Hey...I'll give you that we've had a 'colorful' past. But, the mayor, came in and right away started cleaning house of the old school cronyism. Yeah...we've still got a way to go...but, these days...it isn't any more crooked here that it is in other state's governments.

      Blanco? Well, I'm suspicious of her...in addition to the way she blew it early on post-Katrina..she's a part of the old Edward's political machine...and she does taint the state they way you mentioned. But, Nagin...don't judge him by just what you saw on tv. Sure, he's made mistakes...but, he's really done a great deal to help the city straighten up before katrina...and he was actually here IN the city the whole time trying to help people and get help in here...but, couldn't get the gov to get off her ass and federalize the situation early enough.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "A really good starting point would be to do the thirty minutes of research required and figure out what the biggest storm surge and highest wind speeds reported to have made landfall in the area (or, any of the gulf coast in general) were, and then plan for more than that. I.e., if the record-holding storm pushed 25' of storm-surge flooding into the Lake, the new levies should probably be build to withstand a 35' storm surge. Similarly, I believe the highest wind speed recorded was Camille's landfall (265mph in Mississippi coastal areas), so building codes should obviously be upped to withstand 275-300mph sustained winds."
      Yea right... Do you have any idea what it would take to make a building that can sustain 275 sustained wind load??? The answer to that is easy. No you don't.
      A levee that can take a 35 foot surge + 275MPH winds? Never have been done and would cost way to much. You might as well also make Seattle withstand the strongest quake and Tsunami that could ever hit it.
      That level of protection is just not practical. Even in Florida the most that EOCs are rated for is 200. That is considered a 100 year storm. I doubt that you could fined anyone that would even attempt to build a building rated at 265 MPH sustained winds.
      Florida has standards set at 140 MPH because it is practical. There is also a safety factor in that so odds are pretty good that they will stand to 180MPH. The only correct action in the face of a Category 5 storm is to evacuate.
      My grandfather moved to Florida in the 1920s. He was a smart man and taught me well. He said, "Hurricanes are like trains. They only kill the stupid. If you see one coming get off the track."
      Or as Monty Python would say, "Run away, run away!"
      New Orleans needs to build better flood control but they also need a workable evacuation plan and shelters out of the flood zone for it's population.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      No, you don't understand. I agree that Nagins and Blanco are the best pair of mayor/gov LA has ever had. I wish them all the best.

      However, it is still nuts trying to rebuild New Orleans EXACTLY the way it was. Why? The old NO was still the murder capital of US. Why recreate a city where the majority of its citizens were living below poverty?

      The better way to go would be to recreate a smaller, more effecient, more livable New Orleans. Do not rebuild the lower parts of NO which was mostly the most poor neighborhoods. Rebuild the tourist centers, live with category 3 dikes, knowing fully what risks you are taking, because that is the most economically viable decision.

    10. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "...it is still nuts trying to rebuild New Orleans EXACTLY the way it was...murder capital of the US..."

      Oh...I agree with you 100% on this one. It is really going to be the largest social experiment there is. A smaller...tighter, more integrated city is what we need. I hope that we can take advantage of this era...I think of Katrina as maybe 'flushing' the city. Hopefully, we can rebuild the city as a cleaner, more crime free one...with a modern infrastructure and business friendly environment. I hope, though...we can keep the flavor of the city that was a big part of it...the attitudes...love of life...food...etc.

      I hope that housing rebuilt, will be in the style of the older homes...I hope that the architecture doesn't turn the new homes to looking like any other city...that was one really cool thing about living here. Old houses...15 ft ceilings...victorian architecture..spanish architecture...etc.

      I wish we could start by tearing down the remaining projects...they were where most all the murders took place. Replace them with mixed housing neighborhoods. We did this with one old project...and it was a great success. We do need to keep the crime out...and build the schools and business climate to prevent such a poverty stricken class which we used to have here...that was on an endless cycle. Hopefully...we can avoid that in the rebuild..but, Lord...there are still some people wanting to bring that back...they just gotta learn we have to change.

      I think it will too. We're going to have some of those that were in poverty...and now are in other states seeing what life can be..and what a proper public school is supposed to be. And if they come back...they'll help join me in demanding that we do it right down here.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by WorLord · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Do you have any idea what it would take to make a building that can sustain 275 sustained wind load??? The answer to that is easy. No you don't." ... "I doubt that you could fined anyone that would even attempt to build a building rated at 265 MPH sustained winds."

      Suggestion: Perhaps you shouldn't assume so much. That way, I won't have to paste links to buildings that can withstand the winds from very strong tornadoes.

      "A levee that can take a 35 foot surge + 275MPH winds? Never have been done and would cost way to much. "

      I was under the impression that a much larger one already existed.

      "The only correct action in the face of a Category 5 storm is to evacuate."

      Which is why I no longer live there - I essentially agree with this.

    12. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by pottymouth · · Score: 1

      "Florida has standards set at 140 MPH because it is practical"

      No, basic wind speed never exceeds 120 MPH (according to the IBC 2003? Also see http://www.rinker.com/florida/RCo_BuildingCode.htm for Florida specifically) anywhere in the US as far as I recall. I wrote several programs to calculate wind load for steel buildings and I can tell you for a fact that no one is going to build homes (I'm not talking commercial here but residential 1 to 3 story structures) that can withstand more than 120 MPH wind. Some may be able to withstand more than that but they're not designed for it. It costs too much and requires special structural designs that just are not typically done. 275 MPH loads for residential would get you some great laughs at a civil engineering convention....

    13. Re:I also live in Hurricane country. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You should read it carfully. That dome can not withstand sustained winds of 275 mph. A torando is a very limited event in time and space. Also the doors and windows wouldn't And not leeve exists that can take 35 ft of storm surge + 275 mph winds.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  37. This will be an interesting experiment in....... by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 1

    municipal wi-fi. It is going to come down to a competition between municipal funded wi-fi vs. ad funded wi-fi, with the later ultimatly wining out. As computers and wi-fi hardware gets cheaper, we will definitly see ads be sufficient to fund the hardware/support needed. Corporations can sell ad space more efficiently than govt. so I think we'll see them win in the end when hardware gets cheap enough. For now, there's a short period of time where this model makes sense. In any case, this will be interesting.

    --
    No Sigs!
  38. Okay, my point is... by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the sarcasm if it offended you. I wanted to write something witty, and apparently it didn't go over well. I personally have nothing against New Orleans or free Wifi, I just think that instead of the mayor planning on building casinos and free wifi, the money could be better spent on 3 things that are needed immediately:

    1) Housing for displaced residents who have nothing to plug their computers in to
    2) Food and water for those who are hungry, including stray pets
    3) Subsidies for businesses who need help getting back on their feet, which in turn, hires more New Orleans residents who will then possibly buy a computer and use wifi

    Again, I hope the best for New Orleans and its residents who have suffered in many different ways. There is a better future ahead!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  39. Re:Interesting.. all the neg. and missing the poin by merreborn · · Score: 1

    My subdivision has some 500 houses in it. If half of them get high speed internet in some form, at $50/month they are paying out some $12,500 a month collectively for high speed internet access. What if our subdivision decided to set up it's own WiFi network?

    $50 here gets you 6 Mbit downstream, and about 1 Mbit upstream.

    500 of those gets you 3 gbit down, 0.5 gbit up. That's a lot more bandwidth than splitting 6 Mbit 500 ways.

    In fact, 6 Mbit split 500 ways is, what... 12Kbit/sec each? (and 2 KBit/sec downstream)

    Hell, to offer the 512Kbit mentioned here to 500 people, you'd need a 1/4 Gigabit connection. We're talking dual OC-3s which may well cost as much or more than the $12,500 for cable.

  40. A way to bypass these ridiculous 'laws' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some rich person needs to foot the bill for a privately owned and operated free WiFi service. Since it's not offered by the municipality, it wouldn't have the same restrictions.

  41. What? by Morgalyn · · Score: 1

    Why is there a state law mandating a cap on municipal internet services? What was the reasoning behind that? I'd guess it was lobbying by existing providers, who didn't want 'unfair competition' from the G.

    Part of me wonders greatly at what good wifi will do the people in NO at the moment. Do they all have power? Do they all have running and potable water? Do they have roofs? Do they even have computers with wifi cards? The other part of me realizes that wifi could be very, very useful to ongoing efforts to clean things up and get things running, and it does represent a lot of hopefulness and maybe even an effort to take advantage of the situation to push through legislation that kept getting batted down for stupid reasons before (although that's not necessarily.. admirable).

    If they continue with efforts like this, and with large portions of infrastructure being rebuilt and the possibility of deep discounts to get businesses to move back in to the area, NO could become a new tech center.

    --
    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We'd all love to see the plan
    (The Beatles)
    1. Re:What? by aug24 · · Score: 1
      I'd guess it was lobbying by existing providers, who didn't want competition from the G.

      There. Fixed that for ya.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  42. it doesn't stand for wireless fidelity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's wireless fiction

  43. YAY! by Silent_Shadow900 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sweet, now I'll be able to play mario Kart when I go back to NO on christmas.

  44. export the corruption by SlashSquatch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    New Orleans is ranked eighth on this most dangerous cities list as of 2004. That's pre-hurricane data. My sources have their state and local governments as one of the most corrupt in the US. Would you walk around this city with a laptop? You could paint a target on your back too.

    --
    Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
  45. Re:What about the ISPs? by msdschris · · Score: 1

    You DO have a choice. Internet access is NOT a necessity nor a right. I choose not to have local phone service at my house, nor satellite TV / Cable, nor any form of internet access other than my crappy Nextel webbrowser. I don't deserve free access nor does anyone else.

  46. mardi gras by GadoBone · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wonderful. Now there will live streaming web cams from every balcony, every window, and probably every bathroom. It's just what the internet needed more of...on the government dollar.

    --
    Contact Gillware for all your Data Recovery Needs! Data Recovery
  47. Perfect time by Br._Fjordhr · · Score: 1
    For one thing, when you are in a quasi-emergency state there is a possibility of getting permission to do things that would never be allowed otherwise. One of the reasons for this is that it is the perfect rebuttal to the "that isn't the way we have always done it..." opposition. "you are right, we have never done any of this before."

    There is also the infrastructure argument. There is no service that an argument like the one you present can not wok with. Sewers, we need water first. Water, we need disposal first. Houses, we need electricity first. Electricity, we need houses first. It can go on forever.

    This is why many projects get locked in the perpetual planning stage. No one is willing to take the heat for getting started on the project, they would rather plan forever. They want perfect, and as a result never work toward good.

  48. I don't think so by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    I think anybody savvy enough to need WiFi is smart enough not to move back below sea level after having it demonstrated to them that the local government accepts massive drownings every generation or so as "the cost of doing business".

    1. Re:I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...The local government accepts massive drownings every generation or so as "the cost of doing business" "

      FWIW, the local government did not build the levees that broke and caused the drownings. It was the Federal Government that built them and assured people it was safe to move there.

    2. Re:I don't think so by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      FEMA did studies that showed the levees would break and up to 60,000 people would die. The local government was given tons of money to fix the levees, and spent it facilitating the building of casinos. Your information is several decades out of date.

  49. They should get the Interdictor to run it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He obviously knows how to keep things running
    http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/

  50. Why the 144Kbps restriction? Simple by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    The telecoms would hate for cities, towns, civic groups, neighborhoods, or anyone else to get together and set up their own shared high speed wireless network.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  51. New Orleans WiFi by Heembo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My understanding is that it is already deployed in the French Quarter, and will be citiwide in a year. But at 512kbps now, and 128kbps in a year (after the state of emergency is over) - seems rather slow. But not bad for free service while roaming around town. :) In fact here is the entire article from CNN to save you a click: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/11/29/wirele ss.neworleans.ap/index.html

    Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Posted: 2:40 p.m. EST (19:40 GMT)
    NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Hurricane-ravaged New Orleans is starting the nation's first free wireless Internet network owned and run by a major city, a move aimed at boosting the city's stalled economy.

    Mayor Ray Nagin made the announcement at a late morning news conference.

    Similar projects elsewhere have been stalled by stiff opposition from telephone and cable television companies aimed at discouraging competition from public agencies.

    Nagin said the system started operation Tuesday in the central Business District and the French Quarter. It is to be available throughout the city in about a year.

    The system uses hardware mounted on street lights to cover the city.

    Most of the equipment was donated by three companies: Intel Corp., Tropos Networks and Pronto Networks.

    The system will operate at 512 kilobits per second as long as the city remains under a state of emergency.

    That will be slowed once the state of emergency is over -- that date has not been determined -- to 128 kps in accordance with state law, which restricts government-owned Internet service.

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
  52. As Tulane Law student who has to go back to NOLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As Tulane Law student who has to go back to NOLA in January I can safely say I have more pressing concerns like whether or not I will have electricity. My apartment survived Katrina (I live in the Garden District surrounded by 150 year old mansions that have survived MANY hurricanes), but power is sketchy at best in the city, wild dogs walk the street, houses are still being burglarized, the cops are as useless as ever, the mayor is corrupt, the city is run by morons because (read Democrats) elected into office by the lowest common denominator. I cant wait to graduate so I can NEVER come back again.

    Tulane that giant tool of an institution plans to charge those who lost their apartments more for housing than Harvard or Columbia and they plan to stick these people on god damn cruise ships a million miles from the school. I dread what awaits me in January and as a 2L I cant transfer to another school and am totally stuck.

    And to think Im going 100k into debt for this!

    Free internet access will do very little for me. I guess thats 40 bucks a month I wont have to spend, but knowing NOLA and its government any service they do ultimately provide will suck and rarely work.

  53. new orleans gov worse then katrina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh... New orleans is a new soviet state... will never get off the ground.

  54. The splitting of bandwidth... by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    You are correct about the problems of dicing up wireless bandwidth. But our neighborhood is on Cable for high speed internet (no DSL available). And, as you know, cable is also a shared pipe for the neighborhood (and I can feel it in the evenings when the kids/parents get home).

    I wonder what sort of equipment is used by the cable company today to pipe internet into our neighborhood? Does the current cable setup really cost $12,500 a month to service our neighborhood? (these are actual questions, not sarcasm).

    Anyway, I'm sure WiFi and WiMax won't be able to compete with a landline in terms of bandwidth any time soon, but I can see this still being a threat to ISPs.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:The splitting of bandwidth... by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Some simple statistical analysis can tell you how much bandwidth is actually needed to service a large number of users. Assuming that network traffic is Poisson distributed (which is more or less true within a given hour of the day), the probability of packet collision falls off exponentially. Because the big telecom companies hire statisticians to figure this stuff out, you can be certain that the total bandwidth out of the neighborhood is significantly less than 500 * bandwidth to each house, and yet the quality of the connection does not suffer (at least, not so much that people will complain). Incidentally the same principle is used with deployment of phone switching equipment, i.e. the number of actual lines going into an area is less than the actual number of lines sold, which is why the phone system jams up rather quickly when a non-Poisson event happens (e.g. an earthquake or a terrorist attack).

  55. 144Kbps is still pretty cool by hey · · Score: 1

    Even doing a free city-wide 144Kbps wireless network would be pretty cool.
    My city sure ain't got that.

    At that speed you can check your mail, send mail, chat, etc.

  56. Re:They meant "free" WiFi (WiFi @ the Library) by CyberNigma · · Score: 1

    Well then, problem solved. Just go to the library and use their government-provided internet access..

  57. ummm, what? by joeytmann · · Score: 1

    Build a wifi for a city that has been destroyed by a natural disaster and poor built levee system? I think there are more important systems that need to be taken care of before building a wifi network, like a well built levee system that can handle more than a Cat5(yes I know, over build if you can) hurricane, or move the entire city about 80 miles north so its not below sea level.

    --
    Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    1. Re:ummm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The levees were built by the Federal Government. Thus, the Federal Government will be fixing them.

      This wi-fi project is being implemented by the local New Orleans government.

      Just pointing out that the funds for the levees, and the wi-fi come from different budgets. Implenting wi-fi has no impact with the rebuilding of the levees.

    2. Re:ummm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least when the poorly patched levees break again the wireless internet will still be there AND it will be boosted back up to 512kbps... hmm... perhaps the corps will be dissuaded from doing too much to fix the levees... if they don't fail, well, heck, than just 128kbps free wireless.

      Still plenty to check email and look at ascii pics like 1990.

    3. Re:ummm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stimulating the economy seems pretty important to me, and this could help encourage businesses to come back to the area. Its nice to see that the city is trying to do what it can to help the economy while everyone is waiting around to see what the federal government finally decides to do.

    4. Re:ummm, what? by amrust · · Score: 1

      They were built by the Feds, but weren't the local officials supposed to maintain them? With the Feds money, even?

      --
      VOTE!
  58. I think this is a great first step. by Empty+Yo · · Score: 1

    With cable and telephone network owners leaning towards hobbling or curtailing competitive services that use their lines, I think it is high time that governments get involved to guarantee their citizens access to vital services without the inherent filtering the current ISPs will use to promote their own services. Removing the Internet in a country would likely collapse their economy at this point, which indicates exactly how much of a vital service it is, and that it should be treated as a utility as a result.

    --
    I'll tolerate anything except intolerance.
  59. wireless levees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently deploying WiFi is cheaper than stringing CAT-5 cable... and since the levees were only built to CAT-3 in the first place, this is obviously an upgrade!

  60. does WiFi even -work- under water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, can people not smart enough to not rebuild below sea-level in hurricane ally be able to -use- wifi?

  61. Radio Response by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    I met a guy in the parking lot at Ham Radio Outlet who had just come back from installing free metro wireless links (not 802.11, but point-to-point for patching up missing fiber) along the LA-MS gulf coast, with a volunteer organization called Radio Response.

  62. Now All We Need... by Flwyd · · Score: 1

    All we need now is a Tesla-style tower to deliver free wireless power to New Orleans!

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Now All We Need... by queenb**ch · · Score: 1

      About that...why not some things like finish cleaing up from Katrina? The above ground cemetery that's in the Big Easy is a Big Infection waiting to happen. Strains of influenza, cholera, typhoid fever, and all the crap that people have died from in the last 200 years are now active thanks to the flood that opened the crypts and rehydrated all the microbes. While I'm all in favor of internet connections, I'm more in favor of dealing with disease outbreaks and popping a cork in any possible epidemics first. When it comes time to spend money, basic necessities come first. You can survive without an internet connection. Yes, it really is possible.

      2 cents,

      Queen B

      --
      HDGary secures my bank :/
  63. This is why you're too stupid to be allowed a vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proseuting someone for breaking the law isn't censorship. Stop screaming censorship you fucking idiot, or you'll dilute the word so much no one will listen when something is actually censored. Since you think it is censorship, you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in the decision.

  64. Re:This is why you're too stupid to be allowed a v by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

    Proseuting someone for breaking the law isn't censorship. Stop screaming censorship you fucking idiot, or you'll dilute the word so much no one will listen when something is actually censored. Since you think it is censorship, you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in the decision.


    First of all, they are not clearly breaking the law. Most of these cases have been acquitted. I'm not sure if any have been sucessfully prosecuted, in fact.

    But yeah, whatever. With your logic, the government never has and never will censor anything anyway. A law will simply be passed by the religious right or naieve soccer moms (or "for the children") that says "you can't say this anymore". "It isn't censorship - its the law!"... probably exactly what they will say.

  65. Free WiFi by the ppl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    City wide FREE access to the internet is delivered in some of the big cities in the Netherlands by the people; hobbyist sharing their internet connection to the rest. See for example www.wirelessleiden.nl.

    So why need a goverment, just share your connection!

  66. Welcome to "Democracy" by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    Outside of anarchy or absolute sovereignty (i.e. ONE sovereign), you have to compromise with your community, sparky, be it your neighborhood, town, county, state, country, hemisphere or planet. It's not immoral. It's Amoral.

    Welcome to life.

  67. Re:Interesting.. all the neg. and missing the poin by crhylove · · Score: 1

    These ideas are all a part of my presidential campaign for 2012.

    http://www.leperkhanz.com/president

    Enjoy

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  68. the mess we're in by tomcres · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The reason why we pay upwards of $50/mo. for broadband internet is precisely because it is offered by private companies. I don't necessarily need all the bandwidth I'm getting for myself. It would be much more efficient to pool that $50 connection and share it with 49 other people in the neighborhood. But then that's less profit for the local cable monopoly. Sadly, the U.S. is going to lag behind the rest of the world in broadband adoption because we don't take it as a serious matter of building a public communications infrastructure. IMHO, the government should be in sole control of all transportation and communications infrastructure, as well as other major necessities that corporate cartels regularly gouge and abuse us for, like home heating oil, gas, and electricity. They can pay for it by eliminating the corporate welfare given to these same companies that are colluding to keep prices up and gouge the consumer.

  69. This is not "insightful!" by apflwr · · Score: 1

    Why do comments like this get modded up? It's downright childish thing to say and should be obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that this is not an either-or situation. They're not pulling construction workers off sites or relief workers from food distribution sites to set up and maintain wi-fi towers. The only complaint I could really undestand would be to consider whether the cost was worth the benefits, but there is so much money being thrown in so many directions at this point I don't think it matters.

    I would bet the benefits are worth it, by the way-- Considering how many people are there from parts all over right now working to rebuild, I would bet there are a LOT of laptops and PDA's floating around the city. They're doing whatever they can to keep both relief workers and residents in the area, and wi-fi access certainly helps both with critical and leisure communications. Land-based power and phone service in a disaster area tends to be shaky... If I was in such an area I'd be very happy to have access to any reliable form of communication that could be made available.

  70. I hope DirectNIC / InterCosmos isn't running this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the corrupt city of New Orleans, directnic (the business that stayed up and running and provided the city with network connectivity) has been allegedly linked to a huge squatting scam. They've stolen over 144,000 domain names, most recently including the domain a mother put up as a memorial to her murdered 18 month old baby. There is a forum set up to discuss their misdeeds. They've been forced to give back domains by WIPO in every case tried against them. There is a class action lawsuit in the works. This is a huge abuse of power by a domain registrar, yet I can't seem to get this posted to the front page of slashdot.

  71. Re:This will be an interesting experiment in...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    advertising markets are already stretched. don't look to advertising for revenue, the well's dry.

  72. I wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... after they rebuild the city, could they call it New New Orleans? Please??

  73. SWEEEEET! Now I can multitask on my vacation... by design+by+michael · · Score: 1

    Sweet! Now I can drink my beer, eat some jambalaya, get flashed by hot chicks, and blog about it wherever I go!

    --
    401 - Attention span not found
  74. You're somewhat correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FEMA did do a study in 2001, concluding that New Orleans was a high risk area for a natural disaster. But for various reasons, (like Iraq) federal funding has been cut significantly.

    http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,372455,00.html

    Please explain where local governments were given "tons of money" to address the problems found by the FEMA study you cited, but then spent the money on casinos.

    There is only one casino in New Orleans - Harrah's. And they actually pay New Orleans quite a bit of money each year to be the exclusive casino in town.

    I live in New Orleans. And nobody here is saying, "If only we fixed the levees with all that money they gave us for the repairs!"

    The local levee board is responsible for levee maintenance and they are currently under a lot of scrutiny. But they didn't spend money on casinos (or casino), that was given to them for levee repairs based on a FEMA report. There was no such money.

    Your information is lacking details, or just wrong.

    1. Re:You're somewhat correct. by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      There is only one casino in New Orleans - Harrah's. And they actually pay New Orleans quite a bit of money each year to be the exclusive casino in town.

      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff &ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=new+orle ans+casinos

      2 seconds on Google and I have three casinos. It took longer to post that you're wrong than it did to obtain the proof.

    2. Re:You're somewhat correct. by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Ooops, clicked submit before I was done. Here's a link to one of the journalistic investigations into the misspending of the levee board.

      http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9342186/

      They were spending money on asphalting roadways and cleaning fuel tanks, even after being warned of likely catastrophe.

      Frankly, I'm surprised that you're a local and you don't know about something that the rest of the country considers to be a huge scandal. It does answer the oft-asked question of how the hell your politicians stay in office, though; everybody around here has been scratching their heads over it.

  75. Whatchu Talkin' Bout Willis? by Peeptophe · · Score: 1

    How about using the MILLIONS of dollars that are made in NO every year during Mardi Gras?

    I've seen many stories and heard many NO residents complain that everyone is ready to "come to New Orleans to party but they don't want to give us the funds we need to rebuild."

    We've given you money. Millions every year when we come down to party. It's not our fault that your representatives have decided to squander that money due to their corruption. You voted for them. What with all my tax money that has gone to fund rebuilding down there and all the money I have spent over the last 8 years going to Mardi Gras I wonder how many of you are willing to foot the bill for my hotel stay or my food, drinks and transportation next time I come down there.

    As for LA getting money for offshore mining, it's not the same as an interior state getting money for mining within it's borders. It's the Gulf. It's not part of LA.

    In Minnesota, we pay taxes to our state and local government. If our representatives misuse these funds they are given the boot and go to prison or in Wellstone's case we just put him on a broken down plane and let gravity do the rest.

    --
    * Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes *
  76. Re:Interesting.. all the neg. and missing the poin by garver · · Score: 1

    What if our subdivision decided to set up it's own WiFi network?

    So you'll need an infrastructure right? A router, a couple access points, some way to manage access, etc. Next you'll probably want someone to run it, unless you feel like having 499 house holds call you ever time they can't get their email. Finally, you'll need a bill collector to make sure everyone's paying in to cover the monthly fees and denying access when they don't.

    Congratulations. You've just become a service provider.

  77. NOT TRUE by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    You are lying.

  78. correct, don't rebuild in dumb areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't rebuild them either, with federal money if they get destroyed. If those areas seem to think that a one bedroom hovel is worth a quarter million dollars, let *them* come up with the money for rebuilding right smack dab on top of known dangerous earthquake faults.I can't see making poor and middle class people in "flyover" country subsidise the uber rich and just normal rich on the coasts. Want to live where it's very cool but very dangerous? Pay for all of it out of your pocket then.

    The point is coming to be moot soon anyway, the US insurance industry is just slap not going to pay for massive rebuilding in areas that get hit with hurricanes yearly, burn down from brush fires yearly because it's a tinderbox desert, or fall down from earthquakes. These last two hurricanes have basically bankrupted them, even though it's not making much of a splash on the news. We have areas that haven't been rebuilt yet from the hurricanes in 2004, let alone this year. Is this sinking in yet? Enough's enough. If rich people want to live in dangerous areas because it's trendy and cool, let them pay 100% of the costs. If poor people try it, well, there's no help for it, it's just pure lame and in the US you should be allowed to fail. If state X keeps getting ripped off by the feds, there's a solution, it's called FIGHT BACK. Take every fed you see to court on anything you can think of. Don't just whine about it.

        I don't know what the percentage of port workers is or was in NOLA before the storms, but the area could be rebuilt just as a working port facility and skip the drunk stoner aspects, which is most of it. I mean, really, all it is is a drunk party town, all in all not that important. An OLD drunk party town. Just because some city was around before doesn't mean it always has to be, archaeologists are always finding "lost cities". New orleans has become untenable without dropping quad billions and zillions of dollars on it, and even then it probably won't be enough. The rest of the US has the same crumbling roads, old decrepit bridges, old water and sewer lines, you name it, worn out. Rebuild one city, or rebuild the infrastructure in a thousand cities? This is not a tough call. The US is running in the RED bad. We just don't have the scratch for all this stuff. It's bad enough there's bozos off foreign adventuring with billions of dollars a year, just trashing the US reputation and causing more problems, now we have to compound it and drop billions so some people can have a cool area to go get drunk at? Ain't seeing it myself. Rebuild some port facilities, yes, makes sense, the bulk of the area? Nope, does not make sense. It had a good run, be happy with that. Bury it, let the marshes take back over, it's better for the gulf anyway to have massive marshes there and will help to protect the still viable and useful areas inland from future storms. Go build NOLA2 back inland someplace. LA is a big state, you can find the area for a *New* New Orleans on some firmer ground above sea level someplace.

  79. Bullshit alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    power was deregulated in some areas

    Since when does "deregulation" imply an government-sponsored (coercive) monopoly? If government is involved in any way in a market beyond simply protecting against force, then that market is NOT free and NOT "deregulated".

    Here's a little tip. When a politician speaks, the truth is often the exact opposite.

  80. Don't they mean New New Orleans? by zbend · · Score: 1

    Don't they mean New New Orleans?

  81. Why did they wait until after? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does it take a natural disaster to think of adding city-wide internet? Clearly, it could have been useful before the hurricane to alert authorities and get the word out. (albeit, perhaps the grid would not survive the hurricane and the subsequent flood).

  82. Mountain View or New Orleans ? by v_tel001 · · Score: 0

    Which will become the first in the country..Mountain View or New Orleans?

    Check this:
    Google to unwire Mountain View

  83. Becoming a service provider...or not... by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >So you'll need an infrastructure right? A router, a couple access points,
    >some way to manage access, etc. Next you'll probably want someone to run it,
    >unless you feel like having 499 house holds call you ever time they can't get
    >their email. Finally, you'll need a bill collector to make sure everyone's
    >paying in to cover the monthly fees and denying access when they don't.
    >
    >Congratulations. You've just become a service provide

    Good points.

    However, we already have a homeowners' association, and we already have to pay $81/quarter to it, so a fee collection mechanism is already in place for our neighborhood.

    While ideally it would be nice to have someone to call if you can't get it to work, it's not entirely necessary. Once you actually get the hardware up and running, you simply hand out instructions on how to connect to all new folks who move into the neighborhood. Or the instructions could be printed in the quarterly newsletter all homeowners receive. If you can't make it work for you, well, too bad. There are lots of neighborhood services that I don't take advantage of for whatever reason (like, say, the tennis courts or swimming pool) but I still pay for. This would be just another one of those things. But if it really was necessary (and it /will/ be necessary to have someone install, set up, and maintain the hardware), this sort of thing can easily be outsourced. The community already outsources lots of for-hire services, like landscaping, security, maintenance, etc. Why not IT?

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  84. Government Does Work Better for Some Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you like to prove the existance of something with a non-zero elasticity of demand in relation to price?

    The correct term would have been "relatively price inelastic" i.e. the downward slope on a graph of price to use has a drop to run ratio of less than 1:1, so it takes a large increase in price to induce a large decrease in use, as opposed to e.g. the price of a specific bottle of perfume, where a 10% increase in price might induce a 20% decrease in use (no one hit me with the luxury good inverse price elasticy thing doesn't relate to elec. issue).

    And no the only good reason is not use of land, its the idea that since you have high fixed costs and low marginal costs and high price inelasticity, the market will result almost certainly in one or two providers who screw everyone in sight with a combination of high prices (relative to marginal costs) and worst service they can bear (cable companies pre satellite for example). Oh and I forgot, the service itself ie being an ISP should involve NO creativity and really NO value add, it is just build and maintain the infrastructure. Let private companies on every end of the network worry about the value-added stuff. Any company asserting an issue with state run infrastructure is just looking for an annuity.

    So internet use has migrated from a high elasticity item used by the financially or educationally elite (relatively) to an item that is truly a requirement for living in our modern society (just ask yourself what you would say to anyone telling you they didn't have internet connectivity at all, certainly you would view them as more backward than someone who didn't have a telephone).

    1. Re:Government Does Work Better for Some Things by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "Internet use" is not a product. Delivery of Internet service over cable, FTTH, satellite, WiFi, MMDS, EVDO, or dial-up, those are products.

      Keep in mind that cable companies are granted exclusive monopoly rights by local governments - they are already significantly outside the competitive market world. Most people have a choice of two or more satellite providers, but only one cable provider.

  85. How it works in Louisana by Simonetta · · Score: 0

    First the politicos divert a big chunk of money from maintaining the levees. Then a big storm hits. A day later the levee gets a big tear at its weakest point. Millions of gallons of water rush in and fill the bowl of the city, with the deepest part of the bowl in the poorer neighborhoods. All the people leave and gradually the richer people come back.
        The insurance companies won't settle until the feds agree to strengthen the levees. The feds won't set standards for the levees until the insurance companies commit to rebuilding.
        Time passes. Rich neighborhoods are rebuilt, poor neighborhoods aren't. Finally the politicos claim that 'something must be done' and use eminent domain to force the poor people to accept 15 cents or less on dollar for 'fair market value' of the property. Fair market value after the flood, which is next to nothing. The politicos offer huge tracts of formerly poor neighborhoods to their campaign contributors at a tiny fraction of the propertie's former worth. After the campaign contributors have completed the transfer, the feds announce that the levees will be rebuilt to Cat5 standards. The insurance companies don't have to make massive payouts to the former owners of the property.
          The campaign contributors announce that they are relocating their headquarters to the new vacant areas of New Orleans. For this they get huge tax writeoffs, far exceeding the cost of relocating and the new construction. An area outside of the French Quarter is turned into a Disneyland-style theme park. The rest of the flooded formerly poor neighborhoods are turned into housing tracts, single-story cookie-cutter particle-board houses and ugly row apartments. Most of the people who move in are white from other parts of the country.
            The black people who used to live in NOLA are scattered to the slums of Baton Rouge, Houston, Jackson, Memphis in such a way that they will never develop block voting power.
            Hey, I used to live in New Orleans. I even voted for Edwin Edwards once or twice. This is just the way things work there.

  86. It's not taxpayer funded you nitwit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I don't see why New Orleans feels that they're needing a taxpayer funded ISP when what they really need is a tax hiatus to bring businesses and entrepreneurs to LA to create jobs and better lives that jobs help to build.

    *Sigh*

    Please read TFA before you spout off about things you know nothing about. I'ts not taxpayer funded.

    It simply amazes me how ignorant so many of you are BUT how bold you are about sharing your opinions about something you know nothing about.

      The equipment was donated to the city and they (frankly) didn't know what to do with it... Do they let citizens use it free? Do they charge a token amount? Do they let business owners use it free?

      They made the right choice. Let everyone use it for free. [dare I say it, a move 99% of /.ers would agree with.] Further, it provides redundancy for city wide communication. -- A good thing in a hurricane zone.

    This is probably the best single thing that has happened for the the business community in New Orleans in the last month.

    Yes, thousands of computers got flooded... What apprears to be lost on many is that people did the most remarkable thing when they lost their computers -- THEY BOUGHT NEW ONES. Shocking I know.

    Everyone (except one) I know who lost a desktop replaced it with a laptop. New Orleans right now today probably has the highest laptop ownership per capita of any city in the world.

  87. govt economies of scale beats private competition by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    fact is the cheapist way to provide such services is by a govt monopoly paid via landrates or consolidated revenue (ie income tax)

    Take a hypothetical case of a city/county/district/state/nation-wide region where 5 competing networks of similar size each provide full region coverage, each holding about 20% of the market in the network region. Now compare that to a govt telco monopoly with the same city/county/district/state/nation-wide coverage, but instead having 100% of the market. In such a situation the private networks that only have 20% of the market have virtually the same costs as the govt monopoly that holds 100% of the market, but have to spread those costs over a much smaller user base.

    Remember in regards things like public utilities, telcos & network infrastructure the economies of scale of govt monopolies are king, easily beating the multiplicity of waste from the unnecesary redundency of private companies competing in the same market.

    Sure govt statutory authorities may potentially have higher labour costs but that's more than neutralised by other factors. For example statutory authorities are exempt from local govt zoning laws, can obtaine financing at lower interest, don't pay taxes, have easy & cheap axcess to govt land & private land through eminent domain, can share costs with other govt depts & statory authorities (for example offices in govt buildings) & need little marketing/advertising overheads. Plus revenue via landrates or consolidated revenue makes accounting much cheaper as there's no billing or user account overheads

    Fact is the only reasons why many of the worlds utilities & govt telco monopolies were broken up & privatised was because of the now discredited neo-liberalisation ideology of the economic rationalists & the greed of those trying to make a quick buck & politicians wanting quick cash from privatisations to pay for election promises. Hence we have lobbying by upper management in corporatised govt utilities hoping to get the huge payrises & stock options that privatisations bring, lobbying by the business communty because of the big fees that can be made by those in the finance, consultancy & securities scene from privatisations & finally lobbying & backyard deal making by politicians, party faction leaders & bureaucrats with the aim of retiring into a consultancy or company board or being owed a favour by those that do.

  88. Mayor Nagain's Response by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Bush wanted to get Mayor Nagain's opinion on the recent Supreme Court nominations.

    So he asked the NOLA Mayor what he thought about 'Roe vs Wade'.

    The Mayor thought about it and said "I don't care how they get out of the city..."

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  89. Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of destitute niggers who have chosen to be uneducated move to a place called "The Big Easy" so they can cash in on the biggest welfare honeypot there is. Now they want to give them free Wi-Fi too? Why? Seriously, what possible use could they have for it? I mean, we're talking about a group of people here where the "productive member of society" is the exception and not the rule. What productive use would they have for it with the exception of looking at "bling" for the Mercedes they'd like to have, but can't afford, because they'd rather smoke crack than get a job?

    Yes, it's a troll post... But a true one none-the-less.

  90. Its our fault for building here? by Andover+Net · · Score: 1

    New Orleans was built were it was and the levees were built along the Mississippi because both are required by the nation. I am not talking about the tourism or oil. The New Orleans port complex is the largest by volume in the US and the fifth largest in the world. We have the levees along the river because the nation needs a navigatable river. Large ocean going ships can go as far as New Orleans and barges take commodites the rest of the way into the entire center of the country. The entire economy of the center of the country from agriculture to steel is predicated on cheep movement of commodites that the river system provides. Thats why the US took responsibility away from Louisiana for flood protection. Unfortunately the corps of engineers has been malfeasant. Publically saying they built the flood walls to cat 3 standards while actually building flood walls that didnt stand up to the cat 1 or 2 that most of New Orleans actually got.
    http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/ 1133336910287360.xml?nola
    http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/ 1132558719240640.xml?nola
    http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/library -90/113238581335800.xml?nola

    They have lied about the construction techiques they used and futher would release their records on the flood ways citing Homeland Security Concerns! Does that really matter now? In our own investigations using sonar, an independent investigating team has discovered that the steel piling only go to half the depth the corps claims.

    Luckly for the US, most of the port system has survived the storm in good order. But how long to do you expect the port workers to continue to work without the support of a city? How long will the work overtime inorder to make up for people who have not come back because they have no place to comeback to and the country does no seem to want them back?

    A good article on the importance of New Orleans and the current situation:

    http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopol itics_katrina.php

  91. CORRUPTION in LA by rrgg · · Score: 1

    The reason for the wifi law is most likely the one you suggested. This is a perfect example of the corruption that makes LA (in)famous.

  92. Re: NOLA WiFi by azrider · · Score: 1

    I do not often weigh in on these sort of threads. However, in this case I might be able to clarify some of the reasons. I am currently working on a similar project in another city of the same size. First, the primary reason for installing wireless access is for public service (Police, Fire, EMS, City Operations). Since the infrastructure is there, and will not be unduly taxed by public access, there is no reason not to provide same. The systems used can easily segregate public, non-secure access (for web-surfing) from encrypted/secure communications. The current mobile terminals (called MDT's or KDT's) in use by PS agencies provide only very low speed communications. Second, the equipment has been provided by companies who see a benefit in providing same. New Orleans has one of the most advanced video surveillance networks in the country, all working over wireless TCP/IP systems. The added equipment provides much in the way of security for all citizens, whether residing in or visiting the city. That infrastructure (including VOIP) was in place well in advance of **ANY** other communications systems in the city and proved a major help in starting the recovery efforts. The only other effective communications structure was provided by Amateur Radio (suprise, suprise we got involved again). Let's stop finding ways to criticize separate, parallel initiatives to help a sorely damaged community recover from a major (though not unforseen) disaster.

    --
    And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
    John 8:32(King James Version)