Slashdot Mirror
US McDonald's Wi-Fi Going Free In January
Knowzy writes "After five years behind a paywall, McDonalds plans to stop charging for its Wi-Fi in mid-January in the US. According to the Dallas Morning News, you aren't even required to make a purchase — 'free is free,' a spokesman said. It's also been widely reported that they won't impose time limits on your surfing. With around 20,000 free hotspots between McDonald's and Starbucks (who went free[ish] earlier this year), anyone still charging for Wi-Fi is going to look foolish, if not downright greedy."
Free wifi won't make me eat a fried burger.
Flame Broiled, or nothing.
-JJS
For everytime I wished I had Wifi when I was at McDonalds... I'd have the exact same amount of money I do now.
You see, Coffee Shops like Starbucks make sense. Thats where you go to prop open your laptop, pretend to be a professional writer while blogging, while pompously talking to other "professional writers" over your Peppermint Mocha Extra Pump Extra hot no foam Chai Late Fusion Coffee.
There is nothing Arrogant or pompous about pretending to write while stuffing down a big mac.
Panera wifi is free. I just used it the other day.
Perhaps to use the wifi, but you cant sit in the building or on the lot unless you bought something. " parking for customers only"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is it just me, or free wifi from Starbucks is just some wishful thinking? I've traveled to San Deigo, Denver and Boston in the past week and tried on several occasions to get wifi signal. And in each case, Starbucks was requiring me to pay. I don't know why I thought it was free ... may be it was trumpeted in some earlier slashdot article?
AT&T worked out a deal where the hotspots at McDonalds are partnered up with them, so iPhone customers can automatically get signed in and use them for free. It's been that way for months now. I've used the one in my neighborhood a number of times, as well as a couple of them when I was on a road trip.
Only complaint I've had, in general, with Mc Wi-Fi is, I think someone needs to do site surveys on those things and improve the reception! I've always gotten pretty weak signals that are still generally usable, but worse than I get throughout most of my house with my own wireless router.
Unrestricted free WiFi in places where one might be expected to be for some time (sit-down restaurants, conference rooms, hotels, waiting areas) makes sense. People are already sitting around bored and generally looking for something to do, so allowing them to get online with their laptop or smartphone and get stuff done or goof off is great.
Starbucks and McDonalds business models are based on rapid customer turnover. Get 'em in, get 'em fed/caffeinated, get 'em out. People taking up the generally limited space for longer than needed cost them money. What makes sense for these type of places is "free" WiFi with purchase. Every receipt has a code printed on it valid for that day at that location which allows one hour of access. Ran out of time? Go buy a drink or something. I'd also recommend they partner up with one or more of the nation-wide hotspot networks to allow subscribers of those services to get on as well, as long as the payout to the local store makes sense.
There are also a lot of McDonalds and Starbucks locations within a short distance of residential areas. I could see the local McDonalds' front window from my back porch at my last apartment. If they had offered purely open free WiFi, I'd sure as hell have tossed one of my cantennas up and used it as an extra internet connection.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
So I guess all those folks living in apartment or condos right next to McDonalds will get free Internet access (albeit, minimal speeds). Or even better, a competitive fast food chain next door can set up an cantenna to leech bandwidth and then stick a 'Free WiFi!' in their window too!
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Nice try, but that's a different market. At McDs, they want to lure you in and keep you there as long as possible. Even if you don't order anything, at least you will be immersed in their branding. The airport is just the opposite - they have a *captive* audience, and they're the only game in town. That's why a soda at the airport costs 5.00 while the same one at McDs costs $.79. Basic supply and demand.
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein
Nobody going into a McDonald's should be allowed to sit for more than the time it takes to scarf down the food.
In fact, all McDonald's should be placed at the top of long flights of stairs; or better, escalators running backwards.
And you should only be allowed to use your computer after watching wrestling, drinking a few beers and getting laid.
You see, making sweeping generalisations about other people's lifestyles, and deciding unilaterally that you are right and they are wrong, is easy.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
It always seemed like McDonalds didn't want people to hang around anyway. They've always had horribly uncomfortable seats, cramped seating areas, unsettling colors (per color theory if you believe that stuff), etc. Even the PlayPlace ones seem mostly uninviting.
I always just assumed that they didn't actually want people hanging out. "Get your burger and get the f* out".
Free for up to 2 hours (per-day, may not be split across multiple login sessions) if you've registered one of their Starbucks stored-value cards and you've used it to make a purchase sometime within the last 30 days.
So more "free with purchase"-style.
I read somewhere that back in the 80's McDonalds in the US inner cities had problems with crack addicts. They'd stay all day, maybe buy a coffee or fries occasionally. Hardcore crack addicts don't eat much but they need small amounts of water, salt, sugar, caffeine and fat which were supplied by the coffee and fries. They smelled bad and were abusive and scared away the regular customers who'd spend more and leave quicker. The revenue per table hour started to drop in the crack addict infested restaurants. McDonalds Corporate was made aware of the problem and asked for directions.
McDonalds is a bit like the bugs in Starship Troopers - lower level drones are able to implement policy and are interrogated about falling revenues but not trusted to make policy. That was done by MBAs - the McDonalds equivalent of Brain Bugs - in the headquarters. Now clearly forcefully evicting the crack addicts though possible would create a bad atmosphere. Studies were commissioned. It was found that crack addicts dislike bright lights but the good customers - people who wolf down this months's special premium burger supersize meal ("SwissMac Meal! With real Swiss Cheese!") and then got the hell out - weren't bothered by them. Or indeed anything else.
A decision was made to increase the ambient light levels. The crack addicts left and revenues increased. My guess is geeks leaching wifi will need to be repelled in the same way, and for much the same reasons.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I've noticed that, in general, the more expensive a place is the more likely it is to charge for WiFi. Hotels are especially bad about this. Inexpensive chains usually offer free WiFi whereas expensive hotels generally charge. Hiltons, in particular, often charge unbelievable rates: $15/night in some hotels. Far from competition bringing the price down, some have actually increased their rates over the years; $10/night used to be fairly standard. As best I can figure, they're targeting business travelers with expense accounts. For example, many hotels charge extra for the ability to use a VPN, which makes no technical sense but is a great way to price discriminate.
I've also found that the terrible WiFi rates at many high-end hotels actually make sites like Priceline less useful. Yeah, you might get a great rate on a 4-star hotel, but when you figure in the cost of WiFi and parking it often ends up being nearly a wash. I think in the end it'll actually be the cell phone companies that kill overpriced WiFi. If you can use your tethered cell phone, why pay for WiFi? Sure a tethered data plan might be $60/month, but that's for 30 days compared to just 4 nights of WiFi at a Hilton.
What is your Big MAC address? Have you enabled your Wi-Fry connection?
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
In fact, I've heard that was Ray Kroc's original stroke of genius: serve consistent, mediocre food almost instantaneously, and deliberately make the place unpleasant and uncomfortable so that patrons didn't stick around too long crowding the restaurant (and thus preventing new patrons from coming in).
Yes, I know, [citation needed] and all that.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willingness_to_pay
If you willing to dish out $500+ per night for a double queen room, then you're probably ok with $13 per night wifi and $32 cheeseburgers (Actual prices from a hilton I stayed at).
I was sent on a short-notice (36 hours) emergency deployment to hawaii a while back; base housing was under construction so we had to stay downtown. I wound up living in the Waikiki Beach Hilton for about 2 months. That sounds great, and for the most part it was, but I was an E-5 living in an environment designed for the very rich. I had a nice view of the beach, yes, but like I said earlier the internet prices were outrageous. It turned out to be much cheaper to find a local t-mobile store and buy a usb wireless internet dongle. A month later I returned it and ultimately wound up paying only for the one month of service with no termination fee (under 30 days trial period).
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.