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.
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
I think he is talking about the poor not the homeless. The poor are even getting to the point were they are purchasing machines, even second hand ones that you or I wouldnt pay for, but they are willing to pay a 100 bucks for and they then have a computer.
A homeless man is another problem entirely. But for a poor person, all the sudden being able to use a cheap wifi connector and some knowhow to get internet for free instead of 45 a month will be a great boon.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
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!
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?"
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"