Slashdot Mirror
New Orleans Tech Chief Vows WiFi Net Here to Stay
breckinshire writes "After Hurricane Katrina last year, New Orleans set up a city-wide wireless network to encourage businesses to return and assist in recovery. The New Orleans technology chief recently said that he intends to make the network permanent, in spite of state law and the disapproval of telecoms."
But I just gotta know - is this a Chocolate Wifi network?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Will they place the transmitters on buoys?
A permanent WiFi network for a city that doesn't exist. Has this guy not noticed that over 50% of the population has not returned and doesn't plan on returning?
I take issue with the telecom companies trying to regulate what city government can and cannot do with their donated equipment. However, if the city shuts down their equipment and lets it sit inactive until another emergency the telecom companies do not have a problem with this.
What the city should propose to do is use the current emergency services systems (police, fire, etc.) in parallel with the wireless equipment. This would provide a variety of systems to use if one fails in the event of another hurricane. A majority if not all the equipment came from Cisco, which provides a software solution called LMR Over IP. This would ensure a highly redundant solution, just incase another event like hurricane Katrina happens again. This is a far better solution than having equipment sitting there useless, or removing it entirely.
/whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
And said that it's a lifeblood for city residents. He also said that Bell South, once he intimated that this might be done, immediately slowed down on committments they'd made to the City to get restoration done.
/.ers should start a movement to create an alternate net down there that can't be touched by the law. Not renegade, rather to aid the people in NO that use the city WiFi as a lifeline.
In a way, it's an 'up-the-telcos' soft of move. And who can blame him?
I'm for the citizens of NO, not incumbent telcos with rotten attitudes. Maybe
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
From my experience, I've noticed that a public anything can and will be abused. I feel that they should limit the service to the people they want to help. Private citizens can opt in for a fee. In my mind, I feel that this would stop abuse.
Even as a free-market kind of guy, the doublespeak here really makes my head spin. In the name of fair competition... we have to eliminate anything that might outcompete with $5.99/minute pay-card-based WiFi providers.
Then again, welcome to Newspeak verb conjugation 101:
I am erotic. You are kinky. They are perverts.
We protect. Our allies enforce. Our enemies oppress.
Government appropriates. Telecoms lobby. WiFi users steal.
One wonders how a law like that would get passed in the first place. Could it perhaps be campaign contributions by telcos?
If and when this does go to legal grounds, it will most likely be a huge landmark case that could open the floodgates for other cities to establish a municiple wireless system.
If it's handled improperly, and gets shut down, it will be a serious blow to any in roads already established toward providing free, community wireless projects. This would be a terrible crime, and once again, a reason the US would fall further behind in the broadband arena. The cable companies and Bell's already have an effective monopoly over much of the US, simply because they are the only carrier/provider in the area offering Broadband, and you simply can't go to someone else for that. Wireless takes away this monopoly, and boy are they pissed.
Not that superior quality necessarily protects against superior lobbying...
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Most of the people who are gone wouldn't be too concerned with a Wifi network in the first place.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
How secure is this? It seems to me that anyone who really knows what they're doing will be able to intercept all sorts of traffic. And given the number of people that use insecure wireless to send private info like credit card numbers and such, this could cause serious problems.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Vonage should be flooding New Orleans (pun intended) with advertising! Imagine having free internet PLUS vonage! My monthly bills would go down considerably.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Politics and business have never mixed any better than say... ummm gasoline and matches... no matter how they mix, somebody is getting burned, and its usually not the guy with the matches.
The trouble here is not that a city government can operate a WiFi or telecommunications network, but that if they did, it would remove the stranglehold that the telecoms companies have over the consumers. That is what is really at stake. Imagine what would happen if we all opened up our APs and started running large mesh networks over telecom company pipes? If you think NO is a problem, there would be calls for federally mandated closure of unsecured wireless APs.
Personally, I thought this is what the free market was supposed to be all about... competition to drive innovation and self-regulate cost structures. Of course there is always that unfair competitive practices thing, but how is making it illegal for anyone to compete 'fair competition' ????
I'm willing to bet that an 'open source' style mesh network can run for quite an extended period of time on simply the money that has been spent lobbying to keep NO from running a metro WiFi network. Perhaps its time to review, in public forums, the costs incurred by metropolitan NO on behalf of telecom companies so they can provide services? Licenses for towers and transmitters are not free, nor are they given away by divine right of the telecom companies. Tit for tat? Maybe its time?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
It is truly scary that government officials believe that they are above the law. Laws are passed for a reason - for good or for bad, and we have to accept the law as it is, or collectively agree to change the law.
Sadly, in this day and age, many laws are being passed that are just plain stupid. However, even stupid laws are laws, and it takes a majority of supporters to repeal them.
Instead, it has been acceptable for a minority to willingly break the law, despite the fact that the laws are not going to be repealed. This happens over and over again, and sadly, government procecutors ignore their oaths and duties and allow this criminal activity to continue. Shame on them for their absolute incompetence and failure.
I like the idea of letting New Orleans keep their WIFI. I'm in no position to say that it's a bad thing. But evidently a majority of those in honestly elected office think it is a bad thing and passed a law to prevent it, and so being in a democracy, I have to accept that. That's the deal.
I also think the telecoms are fucked in the head. But that doesn't change the law.
This makes me wonder how upset the Telcos & Cable providers were when Libraries (St. Louis, specifically) first brought high-speed Internet to everyone living in the city / county? To me at least, it really seems like the same thing: local government providing a service with tax money for everyone. I know why they're pissed about it: they think they're going to lose exactly one shitload of money because people can use the free Internet vs. cable / dsl at home and businesses. I for one don't really feel sorry for these companies missing out on getting some bucks from the locals. Offer a competitive service at a competitive price and people will go back to personal broadband solutions for their home.
The hardcore foil-hatters, gamers, file-sharing, and business communities will pay for their connection just because they don't want to touch the gov't tainted systems, want faster ping times, or a bigger pipe to push their data out. I mean, it's only 512 kbps and they're talking about dropping it to 128 kbps. I highly doubt (say, I'm 99% sure) using "free Wi-Fi" is a serious solution for most businesses and a lot of home users in the long run.
So in short, suck it up you penny-pinching bastards. There's no "free Wi-Fi" where I live, so you're still getting my check. Sheesh.
hi mom!
... live wifi streaming of Mardi Gras beads for boobies! This will rejuventate the girls gone wild industry!
It seems to me that this is the free market at work and I'll explain why:
We have a service that is sought after by the residents and business people of NO , and we have a provider who is willing to distribute it at a given price. Now granted that price is free and it was at roughly 0 cost to them as the equipment was donated but none the less they are providing a service that the people are after at a price the people like.
Here comes Bell South, etc... who used to have a bunch of customers in NO before a natural disaster wiped them out. They obviously want that business back but replacing all the infrastructure they lost is extremely expensive so they have a dilema. Do we: 1)take a profit hit, piss off stock holders and possibly lose our jobs or 2)lobby against the people currently providing the service for free, colletc our monopoly and restore service when it becomes convenient and not too expensive.
Government should absolutely step in and provide this service IF the people want it, if a private company can provide a more compelling offer people are free to switch to it. In an ideal world once there is no more demand for gov't to provide the service the tax payers could defund it and the network would revert to its emergency only status.
Another analogy for this is roads, there weren't many paved roads before the gov't started building them should the contry have been forced to stand by and wait for private enterprise to build the roads? NO! Should private enterprise be forbidden from building toll roads? NO! if the privately owned roads are better (use any definition of better you like here) then they will get more use than the publicly owned ones. The same will happen with internet access in NO.
Well, they (noted hurricane experts Dr. Philip J. Klotzbach, Dr. William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University) are "predicting a well above-average season (17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher)."
The average is 9.6 tropical storms, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.3 hurricanes reaching or exceeding Category 3 strength.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I don't think any of us would be surprised at how sucky a phone solution many people would be happy with if it were free...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Sad as it is, this looks like one of the few ways that cities can infuse technology into their infrastructure.
1. Have a natural disaster
2. Bring in all available resources
3. Lawsuit!!!
So we have a dilema. Do we wade through the years of project approval, regime change and lawsuits or just wait for the favorite natural disaster of your geographic location to show up?
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
It is truly scary that government officials like president Lincoln believe that they are above the law. Laws are passed for a reason - for good or for bad, and we have to accept the law as it is, or collectively agree to change the law. Sadly, in this day and age, many laws are being passed that are just plain stupid. However, even stupid laws are laws, and it takes a majority of supporters to repeal them. Instead, it has been acceptable for a minority to willingly break the law and assist slaves in escaping, despite the fact that the laws are not going to be repealed. This happens over and over again, and sadly, government procecutors ignore their oaths and duties and allow this criminal activity to continue. Shame on them for their absolute incompetence and failure. I like the idea of freeing the slaves. I'm in no position to say that it's a bad thing. But evidently a majority of those in honestly elected office think it is a bad thing and passed a law to prevent it, and so being in a democracy, I have to accept that. That's the deal. I also think the plantation owners are fucked in the head. But that doesn't change the law.
Point being, just because a "majority" of elected representatives are in favor of a law, doesn't make it a good law.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
What forced the issue in New Orleans was the activities of the Locustworld folks. They set up the very first mesh after the disaster(Locusworld's product is Linux based and Open Source). My understanding is that some other folks came in and made most of the money(i.e. just because there was some donated equipment, don't think there wasn't some pork).
is a .9 hurricane?
"Maybe /.ers should start a movement to create an alternate net down there"
Why stop with "down there"? Why don't we have one everywhere? Who needs the telcos at all if everyone jsut routes their data through their neighbor, and that neighbor does with the next, and so on...?
They'd get revenue rather than spending revenue and the town would be blanketed with wireless coverage before they could begin to issue their RFQ's to their bribers.
Seastead this.
After making the wifi network permanent they will start work on making the levees permanent.
It's good to see they have their priorities straight.
There are two types of people in this world: those that categorize other people and those that don't.
Why do people think that it is great to "compete" with a government-granted monopoly (telcos) with a government-built monopoly? How do you think the telcos got to the level they are at now? A private company (e.g. a real ISP) has enough problems trying to compete with the telcos. There's no way they can compete with taxpayer-funded networks as well.
This has nothing to do with NO or WIFI, but I think we may be on to a new anachronism.
x = hammer(nail.head);
Sorry, if this has been presented before.
Besides, don't all the Starbucks on every other corner serve the same purpose?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
According to the official EarthLink blog (http://blogs.earthlink.net/2006/03/saving_wifi_in _new_orleans.php) New Orleans has approached EarthLink about taking over the WiFi network there. Given that EarthLink is building out the networks in Philly and Anaheim as well this might be the solution to the problem. If a private company runs things the telcos can't complain.
As long as getting access to the 'net is NOT considered a public right (such as electricity, water, sewage removal, etc.), the private telecoms will attempt to capitalize.
:)
Societally, this poses an issue. To be a public utility, everyone must NEED the Internet. If this is so, then many of the 'brick-and-mortar' locations we go to must be replaced with more efficient 'online' locations. This is tricky. As yet, products and services offered online are offered offline. If a basic service (such as banking) moves in its entirety to the virtual world, then the Internet becomes not just a luxury, but a necessity.
This, of course, requires a societal shift. But we are moving this way. Think of communication tools. People 'can't live without' email. Heck, if I don't spend 6-8 hours a day online, I feel useless.
Until access to the Internet is considered a RIGHT, we'll never be able to freely give it away. I say we all put our brains together and create a product/service/idea that is truly revolutionary but can only be gained through the 'net. Moreover, this p/s/i must be so fundamentally essential to the world from that point on, access becomes essential for every man, woman, child, and anything else I missed.
Good luck to the project manager on that one
Not to mention that there are oodles of laws that are simply not enforced.
If the police &/or other enforcement agencies had to go around enforcing every single law on the books, the government would effectively grind to a halt.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The Mayor better check the climate models for his cities future:
Science is showing predictions of a massive rise in ocean levels, say good bye to most of the below sea level land he is looking at, and good bye to almost half of Florida, too.
The Magazine shows a map with the new coast line significantly further inland, with the 'lost cities' of the coast outlined in red.
If the polar ice caps keep melting at there current speed,
your future work commute might look like a scene from WaterWorld!
The idea of free citywide wifi is a terrible idea in the long run. The government will have little reason to be competitive as the technology develops. Private industry is forced to reinvigerate its infrastructure to stay competitive with other services. For example in my location, when cable modems came out, the price of DSL dropped and the bandwidth increased. It was the competition that drove the price down. In a situation like the one proposed, there will be little interest in competing with the government because it is difficult to beat free. As long as the free wifi remains alone, it will become stagnate.
In the end, people will lose out on the developments of new technologies and oppertunities because most companies will not bother coming in. Sure there will be some companies that will come in and specialize for private industry, but the final balance will be a loss to the citizens. The benefit will be for the poor who could never pay 30 bucks a month for broadband, but they generally don't have computers anyway.
Why doesn't he just turn over the network to a non-profit? Then, it's no longer a city run network, but can remain free as long as it gets funding somehow. Donations from the city? :)
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Good for him. This can only mean good things for New Orleans, and may keep the ball rolling for other municipal wi-fi projects.
I don't see why the city of New Orleans can't set up a city authority to run the wireless network as a business entity. Or, deed the wireless network over to a non-profit entity to run. It seems there should be a creative solution to get around bad legislation.
Whats better, being taxed for wifi service or paying for it? The market should decide the price, not the government. Which do you think is more efficient?
Instead of having government wifi they should be enacting laws to make wifi meet the emergency standards they want. Governments are supposed to regulate markets not take them over at the tax payers expense.
Come on, you think the new levees are going to handle another hurricane? If you guys rebuild below sealevel and you get trashed again...I think FEMA should tell you to 'fuck off'.
Blar.
it's a guerilla movement, and unless they embrace it and push it like they pushed ATM, frame, DSL, it's going to eat them up faster than cable and cellphones.
rollout costs of wi-fi are basically nothing for a sorta-system, and twice that for a 22-1/2 by 6 system... if you're charging five bucks or fifteen bucks a month for the access code, you aren't going to promise 24x7.
it will cost like any other infrastructure if you're going to roll out an FCC-acceptable carrier-class system. but with VoIP in the USB jack, that's a full mobile office, and folks from Bill's Construction to Diaperpails R We won't have a fixed office at all.
if it's so hard to make a business case FOR wi-fi at a telco, as so many public announcements to wail street have stated, how come every passing slick with a tie and a business card has at least two deals going with cities to do a wi-fi rollout?
it's going to bite the telcos in the end.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Things are tough down here...The main issue right now is housing. Without housing there is a small workforce. The workforce that is here is only taking the high paying jobs. There is also a large population of illegal immigrants now that hang out at Lee Circle waiting for work. Little by little housing becomes available, but it is not cheap. Many businesses are running odd hours because they do not have enough...or in some cases any employes to run them. Wal-Mart on Tchoupitoulas has half the store roped off until they get more employees to run it. There are many sections of the city that are uninhabitable. I saw a group of people having an open air church session with a makeshift wooden cross the other day in an abandoned store parking lot. Some of but not all of the traffic signals by the Super Dome got turned on last week. Most of the traffic signals still do not work city wide (power is available in most cases) and have stop signs instead. Before you blaim Entergy...do not...It is the Cities responsibility to get them working....Well anyways...take a hike with your Neocon attitude!
A wireless internet available everywhere would make it easier to do things like rebuilding and planning because communication is the key to getting things done.
The proper goal for this would be for there to be some access everywhere, but if you want to be downloading movies in realtime, you have to talk to a higher bandwidth provider.
When planning resources like this you have to ask: How many jobs will the plan create vs. leaving things alone? i.e. If the goverment stays out and lets private enterprise provide bandwidth it might add 1000 extra jobs to the local economy. If some bandwidth is free, there may be only 500 of those 1000 jobs in providing high bandwidth, but it might enable 2000 additional local jobs to be created and maintained. Of course, figuring out these numbers is as much crystal ball work as forcasting the weather.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)