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."

Comments

Go N'Orleans!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

But I just gotta know - is this a Chocolate Wifi network?

Buoys?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Will they place the transmitters on buoys?

Opportunity Knocking

[wiz31337]

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.

He did a talk about this at Spring VON

[postbigbang]

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.

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 /.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.

My Irony Asplode

[Tackhead]

> "We believe the Fair Competition Act was established to provide safeguards for private industry," Grabert said. "Efforts to repeal it do raise concerns."

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.

Re:My Irony Asplode

[conJunk]

"We believe the Fair Competition Act was established to provide safeguards for private industry," Grabert said. "Efforts to repeal it do raise concerns."
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.

nail.head, meet hammer.

that's pretty much it right there. Meffert seems to be operating on the following assumptions:

1- if private industry isn't priding this service, the government should
2- wifi is important for the rebuilding of the city's economy
3- as for how #2 above should be best implemented, see number one

at the end of the day, anyone who disagrees with this guy is trying to line their own pockets, and telling people who've been pretty roundly screwed over that they should just bend over and grin

this might be the first reasonable statement i've heard from a public official in years

Re:My Irony Asplode

[penix1]

"Unless your paying for the bandwidth, the users shouldn't bitch when the access becomes saturated because the telcos arn't getting their cut of profit for the fiber THEY layed."

You hear this argument all over the place. I think it is time to debunk it. The telcos may have (and I emphasize MAY) laid them to begin with but in this case it is federal dollars paying for replacement of ALL the infrastructure (including the telco lines). The program responsible for it in FEMA is called Infrastructure (commonly called "Public Assistance"). In a normal disaster the federal split is 75% federal and 25% state. In a catastrophic disaster that drops to 90% fed 10% state. In the case of Katrina even that has been waived with the federal paying 100%.

PA pays for doing public buildings, public services such as power & communications, roads, water and waste water treatment, and debris removal. There are whole categories that they cover. It isn't the telcos laying anything in New Orleans AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE so please stop spreading this little white lie.

B.

DISCLAIMER: I was previously employed by FEMA but now work for my State doing the same thing.

Breaking the Law is No Good.

[lancejjj]

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.

Re:Breaking the Law is No Good.

[santiago]

On the contrary, what is legal and what is moral are often in conflict. If enough people feel that a law is wrong, breaking it repeatedly is an excellent method of making everyone else realize that the law should be changed. Many of the great leaders and heroes of our history engaged in civil disobedience as a means to change society. The right to unionize, universal adult suffrage, an end to racial discrimination laws, the withdrawal of colonial governments from occupied nations--refusing to follow bad laws played a key role in all of these.

Re:Breaking the Law is No Good.

[vertinox]

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.

Dear American Revolutionaries,

It dumbfounds me to no extent why you are not obeying our laws like civilized people. For good or for bad, you must accept the authority of the British Crown and English Parliament. Perhaps you can collectively agree to petition us and we might change the law... If we feel like it.

Yours Truly,

King George

Re:Let's be honest...

[cayenne8]

"Let's be honest here... Most of the people who are gone wouldn't be too concerned with a Wifi network in the first place."

I have to second that one...most of the crack dealers that left are not that technically inclined.

Right now with housing, etc...you cannot live in New Orleans unless you are a productive citizen with a job. There is no tax base there to provide for the welfare freeloaders that have not been able to come back. This isn't a racial thing...is an economic thing. If you can work...you can live in New Orleans. If we can survive this next hurricane season, I think that NOLA will actually be a much nicer place...crime is WAY down, and the state has taken over almost all of the schools in the city. The city has a chance to come back better than before...just hope the politicos don't blow this once in a lifetime chance to rebuild a city.

Re:Law

[AngryNick]

CIO magazine just ran a decent article on the fight...

FTFLA:
A growing number of cities and towns want to develop their own public Wi-Fi networks. But they face stiff opposition from telecom and cable providers.

You will find that there are several state laws on the books as well as US House and Senate bills pending that would prohibit or limit a city's ability to provide WiFi services. To make things fun, there is a competing bill in the Senate that would make it illegal to make it illegal to make a law that would prohibit cities from offering services (!!=1).

Our political system amazes me...if we could only harness all that wasted energy.