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*
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.
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.
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
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!
You know, there are some cultures in which they don't measure how intelligent you are by what you know or how clear your arguement is, but by how good you are at getting out of looking stupid when you've made a mistake... so here goes... although I was completely wrong and you are completely right, you might be inclined to read what i wrote in such a way that I was saying that the Wifi wouldn't be fast enough for a full time connection unless you bought the upgrade, in which case it does very little to address the ballence... second thoughts... that's what I meant all along
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
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.
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.
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
I think that if the citizens of a town really want to finance this boondoggle (it isn't being provided freely by Earthlink and Google right?), let them do it.
And from the article:
Both companies would share the cost of installing the necessary equipment, estimated at up to $12 million. San Francisco will pay nothing and actually reap some fees by leasing city property as perches for Wi-Fi antennas.
We have 3 cheap WiFi providers in the area (very cheap), we have DSL and we have Cable, and now we have 2 more wired providers who are testing the waters. I see no reason to give free access on the taxpayer's backs.
See above. Also, most people don't have those options. Most people, have the access to cable modem, some have access to DSL or other methods. But in most of the country, many choices don't exist. Also, most of these services are available because the companies were allowed right-of-way access to install the infrastructure. Access mandated by, you guessed it, the government.
Since you are an "anarcho-capitalist" (does this mean that if your house is on fire you don't call and use the services of the fire department? If it snows, do you make sure not to drive on the roads that the gov't plows?) You should love this idea. It is capitalism at it's best, companies competing to provide a service to consumers, at no cost to the government, nor the user.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Doesn't San Fran already have WiFi everywhere? I mean.. there's 108 Starbucks within a 10-mile radius..
Imagine that; someone from Berkely calling a tax-funded government service "free".
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy