Slashdot Mirror
Google/Earthlink Wins San Francisco WiFi Deal
maximander wrote to mention coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle of that city's final decision on their city-wide WiFi system. They've chosen to go with Google and EarthLink. From the article: "In choosing to negotiate with the Google-EarthLink team, the city is going with two Internet giants with marque names. Both firms have deep pockets and proven track records online, but only limited experience building a large wireless network. The project, championed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, is intended to boost the city's technology credentials and help bridge the digital divide between the Internet haves and have-nots. It has also generated intense interest from other cities looking to build similar networks. "
Anyone know when it will be out of beta?
*ducks*
Congradulations, Google and Earthlink! Can I have a job now?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
How does this affect me?
There are a few people who pulled everything to help the Bush reelection. Gavin Newsom (D) is probably one who helped the most. The 2004 "I declare gay marriage legal" spectacle was just precious.
Wi-Fi a a basic human right, says SF Mayor.
Nothing has been worse for fiscal responsibility than when the public discovered they could vote themselves pieces of the treasury.
This isn't much of a surprise. Google is a Bay area fixture, and Earthlink has a major focus on providing urban Broadband. The partnership of the two is a natural and will make SF a key example of what more metro areas need to be.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Everyone - don't forget that WiFi is a Basic Human Right
Politicians hey? They're sooooo cute!
My pics.
This will cost about $20 a month (based on there other pricing settings) so I don't really see this doing anything to address the "have and have nots" viz-a-viz the internet and Wifi. It probably won't be good enough to replace your home net connection and for $20 I would think you could get an ok net connection and a cheap rooter so how does it address the problem?
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
The project, championed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, is intended to boost the city's technology credentials and help bridge the digital divide between the Internet haves and have-nots.
The folks sleeping on the streets of the Tenderloin want their WiFi!
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
or political maneuvering from telecos in the California Legislature to put an end to this? I bet they will wait until Google/Earthlink nears completion - then they will try to pull the rug and take over themselves.
"Google, in Mountain View, intends to provide the free, so-called Wi-Fi access. The service it proposes would be faster than dial-up but slower than a typical broadband connection. In its joint bid, Earthlink plans to offer speedier access, but for a fee.
It looks like the entire scheme is a classic "the first dose is free but the good stuff'll cost ya" scheme. That's not necessarily a bad way to go, to implement a public good while preserving competitive incentives.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
I've never seen a bum sitting out on the street with his laptop asking, "Wi-Fi connection? Spare a kilobit? Sir? Sir?" to passersby. Unless Mayor Newsom is handing out $100 laptops to vagrants on the street, I don't know how this bridges the gap between tech haves and have-nots. Any word on plans to provide more than radio waves to the have-nots?
For more information, click here.
It would be good to see one of these city wireless plans finally come to fruition;
Philadelphia has been having a tough time finally getting its own initiative off the ground . . .
http://www.wirelessphiladelphia.org/
I also look forward to seeing evidence that these initiatives are bridging the 'digital divide' in these cities.
From the article... "It remains to be seen whether residents will use the Wi-Fi system as a replacement for their existing wire-based Internet connections. Early fears by the mayor that the telecommunications industry would fight against the project by filing lawsuits have yet to materialize." As we've seen with people willing to pay extra for the faster speeds of Cable over DSL, I doubt many people will use it as a replacement for broadband. You can also think about how many people use NetZero's free dialup server instead of paying for another dialup provider such as Earthlink. I guess time will tell though on what affect it has on competitors.
6 boneless breasts of chicken (skinless) or 6 chicken thighs (boneless and skinless)
1/2 c. soy sauce
1/2 c. sherry
2 tbsp. Dijon mustard
1 tbsp. Tabasco
1/2 c. olive oil
Melted butter
3 c. toasted bread crumbs
1 1/2 tsp. freshly ground pepper
Marinate chicken for 2 hours in a mixture of soy sauce, sherry, olive oil, Tabasco, and mustard. Broil for 6 minutes per side (time may vary if using dark meat). Remove from oven, dip in melted butter, and roll in bread crumbs and pepper mixture. Return to broiler for 2 minutes; watch carefully. Brush with butter and broil for another minute. Serve with Sauce Bernaise:
SAUCE BERNAISE:
3 scallions or shallots, finely chopped
1 tsp. tarragon or 1 tbsp. chopped fresh tarragon
1/4 c. wine vinegar
1/4 c. white wine
2 tsp. chopped parsley
1/4 lb. butter
3 egg yolks
1/2 tsp. salt
1 tbsp. lemon juice
Dash of Tabasco
Basic Hollandaise sauce ingredients.
Cut the butter into 3 equal parts. Beat egg yolks slightly and add seasonings. Place in an enamel, glass or pottery container over hot water. Using a wire whisk, beat in 1/3 of the butter, then the second piece and then the third. Do not let the water boil. This is Hollandaise to this point. If it should curdle, add a touch of boiling water and continue stirring until it emulsifies again.
In a small pan, combine shallots, wine vinegar, wine, and chopped parsley. Bring to a boil and reduce to practically a glaze. Add this to the basic Hollandaise sauce and correct the seasoning. If tarragon is fresh, it is nice to stir in an extra amount.
From the first sentence:
(emphasis mine).
Further down in the article:
Google gives free wifi, or you can upgrade the service by paying Earthlink $20/month or so (hasn't been set) if you want a faster connection.
There's no excuse for not even reading the first sentence of an article that isn't slashdotted. That includes moderators.
Chances are that no one will read this because I am languishing in Bad Karma Hell, but just wondering... why provide this great free WiFi in the name of the poor? Did someone miss the fact that you need a computer to get on the net? City wide WiFi is a great idea and all... but it helps the middle class more than anyone. Unless you bundle it with some kind of computer giveaway or those fabled $100 laptops, it's not going to be the 'great internet equalizer' or lead to any kind of social equity...
Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...
54
See also: digg, an hour ago.
Is L. Ron invading San Francisco?
"Research is like sex: sometimes something useful is produced, but that's not why we do it." -- Richard Feynman
I wonder if this will cause a decrease in the number of people who are interested in learning how to hack someone's wireless simply because they want to be able to use a network where ever they go. It'd be interesting if the simple act of making a blanket wifi network for a city caused a distinct lack of interest in hacking wireless.
disclaimer:
Yes, by hacking I mean using someone elses tools to break someones WEP or WPA-PSK encrypted network. Is there a word for script kiddying? skidding?
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Is that why the baby Bells are fighting for two-tier internet servercice? They're going to give away basic service for free? SWEEET!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
for $20 I would think you could get an ok net connection and a cheap rooter
Used to be you could get a cheap rooter for $20, but I think Sony quit selling them.
Then by god they should be able to allow to vote for politicians that enact such policies. If the public wishes to not have fiscal responsibility and even vote in socialism into their government, then it is their god given right to do so.
I'm not saying free WiFi is socialism, but to say the public can't be allowed to have a referendum to pay for public works or elect representatives that cannot do what it wants is not a democracy (plain and simple).
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
So the problem is thus, people in my office, connected to our LAN are also connected to this wide open network where all sorts of bad things could be roaming free. Windows and MacOS both seem to automaticly connect to these rogue networks and thus bypass any local network security I can enforce.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Good try! but I'm sure as past posts have mentioned as soon as this thing comes close to being real (ie. the first AP comes online), the Telcos will put pressure on the powers that be to stall , or otherwise get a cut of the action for themselves.. Look at New Orleans and all their strife.. too much entrenched interest are at stake. But its nice to see some cities having the fortitude to try it.. Out of curiosity what is the largest metro wifi in place today?
The Google/Earthlink deal is not good for consumers: The use of proprietary technologies and hand-picked 'competitors' promise nothing more than another tightly controlled network. So now there will be Cable, DSL, and Googlink. Whoop-de-doo - the illusion of freedom.
It would have been better to implement something like RoofNet, which is fully open source and runs on off-the-shelf components. It's high performance, well tested, and in use here in Cambridge. There will be some add-ons to it made by my company, XA Networks, but compatibility with the open-source software is guaranteed.
from the article:
Google executives have said that they consider the project an experiment for testing online advertising based on where a user is located.
So people wig out because rfid's in products threaten to expose your whereabouts and to make it easier for companies to spam you everywhere you go, but then Google proposes to do exactly the same thing (though in a more limited context) and everyone says "it's a natural"? Google is in it for the bucks, and if they can leverage our tax dollars to provide themselves with a "free" advertising channel, they are going for it. How is this not evil? Can the cities proposal be changed to not allow advertisements from the vendors, after all, once they chose, they're locked in right (which means that WE, the taxpayer is now locked in).
However...
Half of Hollywood already follows his UFO religion displayed by poster boy Tom Cruise. His Austrian convert is worming his way into more and more govenment workings. Now his followers are taking over the wireless waves. We really should have seen this coming.
I can't help but wonder what plans for California are being devised in a well lit, non-smoking, board room before heading out to a safe night spot for an all night not-drinking binge.
I put together the technical end of the first municiple mesh in the US using LocustWorld meshboxes. It happened only because I moved out of silicon valley to a small town with no municiple bureaucracy to schmooze up. There were just some folks who wanted wireless for tourists coming through their town and we even got it set up so the local ISP didn't get put out of business by the tax subsidy. They took some bids from guys that had no "pockets" or "marquee" at all, and got a solution. I look around at the solemn rhetoric about the wireless mesh in New Orleans subsequent to Katrina, and the rhetoric about rich and poor in San Francisco's wireless access and just thank my lucky stars I'm out here with a bunch of "inbred hicks who don't know what leading edge technology is."
Seastead this.
Some heart-healthy recipe trolls, please.
We students are getting reamed by Comcast. Give us some free WiFi over here!
Nobody's saying every resident of San Francisco needs to cancel their broadband and use Googlink. It's just convenient. I can't wait for the day if/when a similar project comes to fruition in NYC, and I can just open my laptop wherever I want and be online. It's a freedom students enjoy on college campuses that we start to take for granted... until we get home for the summer. And it's a bummer.
People can keep their Comcast or Verizon or whoever does their high-speed at home... but now your local municipality provides access to the sum total of the world's information wherever you want it. About damn time.
Fragging my father since 2004
This is free and apparently better than dial-up. I know a few low-income people on dial-up, so this might address the balance, but my experience is in New Castle, IN and not San Francisco, CA.
Not a huge surprise -- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome is good friends with Larry and Sergei.
go get it
Then by god they should be able to allow to vote for politicians that enact such policies. If the public wishes to not have fiscal responsibility and even vote in socialism into their government, then it is their god given right to do so.
Many towns, cities and municipalities have publicly owned and operated electricity, telephone or cable-TV systems, not to mention publicly owned and operated water, sewage and public-works departments, but I've never heard anyone say that any of those are "a basic human right."
If San Francisco wants city-wide. "affordable" Wi-Fi service, hey, more power to them; but calling it "a basic human right" elevates it from a luxury to a necessity and even implies that if San Francisco can't pay for it, then the state or federal government should pay for it.
On the other hand, The Register is a notorious rumour mill.
Damn... i was hoping AOL would win that deal. *shakes fist
If Google is teaming w/ Earthlink on anything - then their do no evil maxim is shot.
Earhlink sucks - they are one of the most evil ISPs on the planet. I can't even count the number of friends and family I know who got screwed in Atlanta when Earthlink swallowed Mindspring, and then over the course of a few years fired everybody worth a shit and outsourced all the support, most of the networking, and the majority of the well paid unix and developer jobs to shitty incompetent counterparts in India. They PR'd it as becoming a globably supporting company while at the same time everyone even in upper management (what was left of it) was cussing Sprint's greedy ass exec teams for killing everything Mindspring had worked to build.
Earthlink is Evil - Google doing Earthlink is the same as Google doing Evil.
Doesn't San Fran already have WiFi everywhere? I mean.. there's 108 Starbucks within a 10-mile radius..
The Register is not exactly known for accuracy in reporting and yet again it sounds like they sexed up what he actually said, which was "No San Franciscan should be without a computer and a broadband connection.". That hardly sounds like he is calling it a "human right".
How cool would it be to see the WiFi signs around town with the tiny Google Beta logo underneath.
Can I bum a sig?
These startup executives seem completely intent on raising publicity by announcing these grand wireless projects but have never made them happen and their location is so far away from the population that they're never used.
San Francisco is a tourist attraction. No-one actually lives there or works there and no-one is going to use a wireless network there. Most of the population lives in the east bay and works in the south bay. That's where a wireless network would be most valuable, but saying you're installing a wireless network in San Ramon just doesn't have the appeal that saying it's in San Francisco has.
Of course, the have-nots are going to need to *have* a computer to make use of this technology. Most of the have-nots do not-have a computer, let alone a wireless laptop that tends to be more expensive than a desktop. I love when mayors pretend to bridge the gap, but instead grow the gap.
It takes one hour to get to either Chicago or Milwaukee from your seignoral estate? On private roads? Or perhaps you're taking I-90 or 94, US12 or 14, state and/or county roads? And please refrain from using the courts and police to enforce your contracts. Finally, please don't hire anyone who isn't an auto-didact. Don't want any of your serfs tainted by state ideology.
Seriously, though, what's the difference between the state providing basic infrastructure such as roads and informational infrastructure such as literacy and internet access?
I saw the proposals for this (they were all publically available on the website), and I must say the Google/Earthlink proposal was definitely the best looking proposal as far as being polished. They'd obviously put some serious work and time on it, while the other proposals mostly looked like some guy did them in Word one night. And a few were seriously ratty. If you were going for professionalism and thought that the proposal was a good indicator of what you might expect, then Google/Earthlink was the easy choice even if they weren't the big names they are.
I realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the actual deployment, but I bet it had quite a strong effect.
If enough cities build free wireless networks, I wouldn't be surprised if people started tossing out their 20$/month landlines altogether. The next thing I want is a city-sponsored PBX system, so we wouldn't have to pay that much for SkypeOut in order to let people phone from a POTS system. (Actually I would be happy with the adoption of open standards for VoIP and PBX systems so Skype couldn't leverage a virtual monopoly over us. I'm telling you: I use Skype, but I hope that it will fall one of these days so we can have some open-standards competition goodness.)
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
On the one hand, I'm a conservative. Small government, stay the hell out of my way. On the other hand, basic communications (internet, telephone, and dare I say it, cell) should be available to anyone cheap and fair. As a capitalist, I see the opportunities for a greater chance ofnew jobs in the sector, if privatived, yet on the other hand, if privatived, a problem with the whole "cheap and fair," part. The other part that worries me is that all of these ciies (New Orleans, Seattle, San Fran) are all doing this independant of any overarching standards, beyond those set by the technologies themselves. One would think that there would need to be some state/federal regulation on the matter, but then my conservative gene starts itching.....Oh well, hail, mighty conondrum!
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
If anyone is interested - they will most likely (they used them with the Mountain View WiFi offering) use http://www.feeva.com/index.html Feeva to supply the localised content/advertising.
I for one am interested to see how the model will work - and how many users they get in the first few months...
Now if only Google would open up some of that dark fibre they keep buying up...
Ele
Does this mean they have been given Letters of Marque?
Let the privateering begin!
Last I checked, it costs quite a bit to live even near San Francisco. I've noticed homeless people there, but are there really poor people living in San Francisco?
Cingular has already rolled out Bay area wide HSDPA for $20 a month
so who needs spotty Wifi?? A waste of time considering the 1 meg throughput with Cingular.
Sineira
Google has jumped the shark.