Silicon Valley to get WiFi Coverage

prostoalex writes "A high tech civic group led by Intel is soliciting a bid from ISPs to create a WiFi cloud around Silicon Valley. From the Reuters article: 'The Smart Valley group will solicit financial contributions to develop the plan to cover another 20 Silicon Valley cities. In all, the plan would stretch across four counties - Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.'"

Comments

Security?

[Eightyford]

How secure are these transmissions? Wouldn't high tech companies in Silicon Valley need extreme security?

Re:Security?

[Professor_UNIX]

How secure are these transmissions? Wouldn't high tech companies in Silicon Valley need extreme security?

How secure do you think the Internet is? Do you trust companies like Level3, XO, and AT&T with your communications? You shouldn't... use a VPN or encrypt your traffic through some other mechanism.

another step

[drDugan]

Wide, free access is another step in humankind's inevitable re-evaluation of what property means. Everywhere I look, things are becomeing more open and free. Freecycle, free wifi, free search, free software ...

when, as a society we unlock the food and shelter, and people start to have real choice in what they do with their time... thigs will start to get REALLY interesting.

Re:another step

[aurb]

I can't wait for my free oil :-)

Re:another step

[scottyokim]

Right, I was going to comment on how no one lifted the laws of economics recently ...

Re:another step

[crimespree]

We have a long way to go before we are anywhere close to a non-monetary society like you see in Star Trek.

Re:another step

[vertinox]

I can't wait for my free oil :-)

Well if ITER gets off their butts and gets the Tokamak reactor up and running they we can have the free power we want to convert stuff to hydrogen or biodisel.

Of course this might be 20-50 years before they get one made for public consumption, but one can only hope...

But like the grandparent says, everything can be free if the right technology is applied. Free markets demand it.

Energy, information, people, and markets want to be free. (We have no choice)

Re:another step

[drDugan]

economics are not LAWS -- economics has descriptive observations of social behaviors. the premise of the whole field of economics is "resource allocation". as the definition of "resources" changes, so does economics

Re:another step

[drDugan]

why? with the rapid acceleration of idea tranfer globally, what is keeping us back?

we're already training the whole 9-16 age bracket on simple models of social interaction with game-based systems. this generation of people will grasp new models of interaction muchg faster than the aged rich today.

Re:another step

[crimespree]

Well, I hate to break this to you but video game social networks have very little to do with doing away with capitalism. The communist ideals are similar to what you are speaking about but have been proven to be too idealistic for reality. At best we can achieve a heavily socialist society with a large number of basic neccessities taken care of, but this will be resisted by a large portion of the population as infringing on their rights. If you look at the spectrum of societal market systems, you can basically look at communism being at one end and slavery at the other. Without fundamentally changing mankind's predalictions towards greed, malice, envy and thievery you have to pick a choice in that spectrum.

Re:another step

[mjake]

when, as a society we unlock the food and shelter, and people start to have real choice in what they do with their time... thigs will start to get REALLY interesting.

Did you miss it? In the US at least this has already happened in a real sense. While it wouldn't work for everyone, on an individual level you can live in homeless shelters and eat in soup kitchens and have better food/shelter than 95% of people had 200-300 years ago - for free.

Most people could get basic food and shelter with a 20 hour a week minimum wage job. Then almost all their time could be used for other things.

You are forgetting human nature. Most humans by nature will strive for more - a higher standard of living. More than they have now. More than their neighbors. The fact that few people settle for a low standard of living to get lots of free time proves it.

So unless "society" can provide everyone with Bill Gates' standard of food and shelter, people will keep working to get more. Your vision of people being "freed" to pursue things other than providing for themselves is flawed and will never come true for 99.99% of the population.

Even if it could happen, I think for the most part we would be sickened by the result. Think about what most "free time" is spent on now.

Re:another step

[drDugan]

you haven't broken anything. These ideas have been around for CENTURIES.

games define the models on which we train our brains. games will radiaclly shift how we think, and thus will change how we live.

words like "communists" are laden with context and the discussion get quite complex, and almost impossible on chat boards.

"the best we can achieve" -- big myth
I assert human nature is highly mutable and defined almost exclusively by the situations in which we train our behaviors. "we" can achieve what ever system "we" make happen.

I agree, there will be significant resistance, hence the "interesting" part of the GP post.

"spectrum of societal market systems" there is no one-dimensional spectrum. there are tons of options human kind has never explored. we're heading toward many of them now. The idea we live in one-dimensional choices is FALSE, and interestingly, the political right attempts in most of it's actions to maintain these dichotomies: right and wrong, "with us or against us", legal and illegal.

Re:another step

[drDugan]

You are forgetting human nature. Most humans by nature will strive for more - a higher standard of living. More than they have now. More than their neighbors. The fact that few people settle for a low standard of living to get lots of free time proves it.

I understand human nature pretty well. Human will strive for understanding. It is unhealth in both individual and society that leaves the individual scared and fearful or running out, which "drives them for more". Modern society has no safety net, and people are significantly afraid of running out.

The concept of "standard of living" is a complete joke in the western world. it roughly translates into: "having more money", and in practice it leads societies to have depression, anger, economic disparity.

Healthy societies and cultures have always understood that the "good life" is when you can relax and enjoy life, you are energized by your daily contributions to society, not work till you bleed so you can have 6 bedrooms and 3 SUVs.


Even if it could happen, I think for the most part we would be sickened by the result.


It can't. These shifts will TAKE TIME -- think generations. the people ahve to change {out}, die off, or go through radical rethinking, which no one likes to do.

Re:another step

[crimespree]

Well, just FYI, I am not part of the 'political right', I voted Green Party in the recent Canadian federal election, and NDP in most of the previous elections. I have no doubt that the society that you are dreaming about would be wonderous and springboard us into better and better things, but free wireless internet in SV is a long long ways from what you are describing, centuries away I would predict. There is a one-dimensional spectrum for all intents and purposes and in practise if you look at the examples throughout the world today. I know you can have cooperatives and barter-system societies but these are isolated and rare and on the decline more than on the rise. You are putting words in my mouth by saying I assert we only have one dimensional choices and then insulting me by saying I am philosophically in line with the political right. I merely am asserting that mankind has only made one dimensional choices, and will continue to do so...

Re:another step

[crimespree]

Here in Canada we have a safety net, many of them, and there are lots of people striving to get rich and people barely able to get by. You sound like you are expounding European society, which are great, but you think there aren't poor and homeless people there? Or rich assholes with SUV's?

How to avoid conflict with 1000s of existing nets?

[sulli]

No matter what 802.11(b/g) channel they select, won't it interfere with existing users?

Re:How to avoid conflict with 1000s of existing ne

[kevin.fowler]

If they have a good sense of humor, they should name it "Linksys".

Isn't there already? SC probably not in range

[192939495969798999]

I assume this is referring to some kind of other free WiFi access, besides the 8 zillion free access points already in the valley. Aren't there some more remote places that need this? This is like giving away chocolate bars to Willy Wonka... pretty sure there's enough to go around already.

Also, Santa Cruz has always had those pesky mountains in the way, so I assume this will be an airborne solution, i.e. satellite or balloon, right? How else will my friends in the SC mountains get it?

Re:How to avoid conflict with 1000s of existing ne

[ptbarnett]

A company who shall rename nameless installed two WAPs to cover each side of their offices.

One of them uses the company name for the SSID. The other (installed later) is still set to "linksys". So, when you carry a laptop from one part of the office to the other, you have to switch networks.

Apparently, they haven't figured out the concept of using the same SSID and different channels so the switch is made automatically.

I wonder how they'll overcome the ISP's?

[mmell]

After all, the ISP's have successfully lobbied in many localities to prevent the establishment of just such "WiFi clouds", citing their inability to compete against such a service.

We're not talking about a few kooks here, we're talking about a LARGE, ENTRENCHED and POWERFUL lobby (think: telcos and cable providers). If the geeks out west can pull this off, it'll establish a precedent which will have ramifications for the entire country and how we are able to use this marvellous new invention, the internet. Will data access become a pervasive utility, or will it remain a (mostly) "nailed to the desktop" commodity? Which way this tips could well redefine what we use the internet for.

Consider: if I can only have access to the internet via my ISP, for the most part I'm limited to the data and applications which will benefit me there (at my desk). If I can have unfettered access to the internet regardless of my physical location, the types of application and data I will want will be affected, possibly creating whole new industries to cater to the needs of a people accustomed to having their computing resources available anyplace and anytime I choose. GPS/data integration is only a tiny sliver of the potential uses this kind of technology could have.

The question is: will our government cave once again to the economically powerful telco/cable lobbies, or will our government gamble, forsaking immediately available revenues from the special interests in favor of a potential torrent of highly profitable and economically stimulating (vapor) technologies?

Re:How to avoid conflict with 1000s of existing ne

[kevin.fowler]

I have to laugh... when I was mooching internet this summer, I had 2 neighbors with Netgear routers. When I went from one end of the apartment on the third floor, to the other end in the basement it was a nearly seamless switch.

Re:Isn't there already? SC probably not in range

[superflippy]

I'm pretty excited to hear Santa Cruz might get WiFi coverage (though I've never thought of it as part of Silicon Valley). It's always been one of my favorite places on earth to visit, and now it's due to get even better. Now if they could just do something about the housing prices...