Slashdot Mirror
Bill Calls For Wi-Fi Base Stations In All Federal Buildings
GovTechGuy submits this from Hillicon Valley: "Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced legislation on Friday that would require all public federal buildings to install WiFi base stations in order to free up cell phone networks. The Federal Wi-Net Act would mandate the installation of small WiFi base stations in all publicly accessible federal buildings in order to increase wireless coverage and free up mobile networks. The bill would require all new buildings under construction to comply and all older buildings to be retrofitted by 2014. It also orders $15 million from the Federal Buildings Fund be allocated to fund the installations."
We don't have the cash for this let the cell phone companies pay for it.
LOL.....Poor mobile phone providers....Waste tax payers money building out a completely useless wireless network so they do t need to upgrade their own networks.
If your public servants need a wireless network to do their job, install a wireless network, dont mandate it in legislation!
So nice of our gubernment to take some of the load off of those congested cellular networks. Phew.
Especially when you consider every building will be a government building eventually.
Yeah, it was too quiet in here. :)
The government doesn't need to be wasting money on stuff like this right now... Not only do the wifi base stations cost money, there are also the reoccurring Internet connection costs and general maintenance costs. Or is this supposed to be some sort of telecom bailout? Besides who wants to use an Internet connection directly controlled by the feds?
We're not sniffing every connection and logging every packet, honest!
--- Do you believe in the day?
Don't worry. By 2016 they'll have figured out that having access points everywhere is a security risk of some sort. The current act will still be in force to require them to be installed, of course, but the We're Scared Of Our Shadows act of 2017 will require that they never have power connected. No problem.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Too bad we can't see what companies these two Sens own stock in that manufacturer/sell the access points
Over here where I come from, not only do government buildings have free wifi - but so do public areas such as parks or gardens.
You can just bring a laptop and work there (for as long as your battery lasts at least) or whatever. That way people who don't want/have data plans can still get wireless internet.
My cell phone carrier was complaining about all that cell bandwidth I was blowing through during working hours. But now I'll be able to push out my leaks to Julian a lot faster and cheaper.
Privatize the cafeterias to Starbucks and Caribou. Instant wifi and revenue!
Home of The Suki Series
Free Public Wireless
WiFileaks.org ?
if the US government weren't already running a $1 trillion plus deficit :-(
Then tell the providers to go fuck themselves. Having a single provider, the government, will cut costs and free up a boatload of bandwidth. Right now we have the opposite of AT&T pre 1980s. Back then AT&T had a monopoly and kept prices high. After the break up competition crept in and prices dropped like a rock. I used to have $150 phone bills back in the 80s because of a couple of long distance calls a week. In today's dollars we'd be talking about more like $300 a month. Now you can get five cents a minute instead of a dollar back then and Skype is free. The providers are over charging and under providing yet the FCC keeps right on renewing their licenses and guess who gets the new bandwidth as it gets freed up? The same providers we have now.
Maybe I'm in the minority but I was surprised to see all of the posts thinking that the cellular providers would like this. I figured they would prefer to have as many people using (and paying for) their bandwidth as possible I wouldn't have been surprised to hear that the lobbyists were out in full force against this..
Since many USGOV buildings and installations have a complete ban on WiFi hotspots since they are insecure.
Lets let anyone attach to the network!
Who the fuck's Bill?
Not only is this a waste and doesn't make sense, but $15m won't be enough. There isn't a govt network admin who will want this traffic on their network and there isn't a govt security group that will allow it. That means each of these will be a new ISP connection. So does GSA get to do this, or the IT group who in the building at the time?
The article mentions Olympia and Mark, but there is no mention of Bill.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
What I read so far says that this bill will require WiFi base stations to be installed in federal buildings. Sounds kinda useless. Does the bill to hook them up to a network come next?
Bill Gates? Bill Clinton?
While WiFi in these areas would be useful for various reasons (welcome to 2000 guys, seriously), mandating it specifically to "free up cell phone networks" is ridiculous. Where I'm from, when you sell someone a product, it's your responsibility to verify that it works. We have these providers spewing ads all over every channel on TV, all over the internet, and constantly telling us deceptive things like "we cover 97% of all Americans." It is not our govt's job to provide cellular telephone service in federal buildings. It is the job of the cellular providers. If the service is inadequate, throw their lobbyists out on their asses until they fix it themselves, morons. This is borderline disgusting, honestly. I was paying $80 a month for wireless service (AT&T) in the center of a decent sized city and not at work, not at home, nor anywhere except right next to a tower was I able to get more than 2 bars, and don't get me started on dropped calls, LOL, even at 5 bars.
I couldn't agree more. This is one of those good ideas we just can't afford, especially with the country's present financial condition.
That's actually kind of what the bill says, to my reading: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44617300/Federal-Wi-Net-Act
Yeah, but how much would it cost? (non-rhetorical question)
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Our $50,000 buildout gets about 14 people a day using it (40 radios in 30 locations)
We don't have the cash for this let the cell phone companies pay for it.
By which, you mean, the consumer will pay for it.
ANY costs assigned to the cell carriers will be directly (or even inflatedly) passed onto the consumer. Period. Heck, if you asked them, they would admit as much.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
These guys are not idiots and they could care less about the cell phone networks. They are trying to shoehorn past a bunch of lobbyist paid shills in congress a law that will force the govt to give free Wi-Fi. If we/they play the cards right we might see more and more of this bypassing all the local and state regulations on internet and cable monopolies. Maybe drop from grid network tech in there as well.... Hmmm
Sample costs: ...
Labor $40/hour. 3-5 hours.
hardware: cat5, mounting brackets, PoE adapters, routers
travel costs: Maybe $800/trip, one way?
Electricity: ?
Management/project oversight: ?
shipping and handling: ?
I'm going to guess (low, I think) that each install would cost about $5,000. So how many wifi installs can $15 million cover? About 3,000 buildings. How many people thing that in all three branches of the federal government, they only have 3000 buildings?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm confused. . . what is the compelling public interest that requires the Federal Government to 'free up cell phone networks'? Why should my taxpayer money be used to offload traffic from the cell phone networks, when people are already paying the cell providers for service? Let the cell providers ensure they have enough coverage and backhaul to fulfill the service they have sold to customers, and if they don't/can't, then haul them into court on breach of contract, false advertising, etc.
If this move would seriously save the government *money* by using its own Wifi APs and Internet connections instead of contracting out to cell providers for data services that the government itself needs, hey, I'd be all for that, but I somehow doubt that wiring *every* Federal building is going to actually *save money*.
this is a great recipe for unauthorized network access and more leakage. i guess they do want more transparency.
...
Actually, the Government will pay for this. The money will come out of the "Federal Buildings Fund". It is collected from "rent" the GSA is paid by Federal Agencies that use federal facilities.
We don't have the cash for this let the cell phone companies pay for it.
We are already spending the cash for it. How do you think many Govt employees & contractors are getting their Internet? 3g wireless cards. And do you think those nice employees are paying for that service out of their pockets with a smile? Nope, that money is coming straight from the govt. In reality, this is moving money from one pot to the other, and hopefully providing better service when it is under govt control. Do I trust the govt to do this right? Not really, but we already many of the cell companies aren't doing it right....
This is actually a piss poor summary of the bill. Having contracted on a number of government sites let me say that through no attempts at such, the buildings act as Faraday cages. Anyone who read the bill would have noticed that they're talking about using femtocells to improve reception of cell phones throughout the buildings. Additionally, considering the widespread use of Blackberry devices, this would allow them to continue to the roll out of of VoIP which has been happening (at least in both Dept of Treasury and Dept of Commerce) which would lower some of the costs associated with the mobile contracts. Considering the high number of employees with these devices and at 15 million dollar price tag, I wouldn't be surprised if this produced a cost savings within 2-5 years.
Why have anyone pay for it? Why is this something the government is required to supply?
They could take any existing computer already with a WiFi adapter, re-orient the antena, set the driver to "Station" mode, run some software that will do some extra routing and shaping in the Background process, and the man can still use his computer while it's servicing Peers.
What they Legislate instead: buy more hardware than we need.
Well, I guess it doesn't need to be WiFi. Any Government building probably (in most cases) already has some sort of halfway-decent broadband access. Internal phones could easily be connected to the outside world via wired VOIP. I don't see any requirement for anyone visiting the building (or in the vicinity) to be able to take a free ride on the Government's internet connection.
We should go all the way, make a Federal law requiring counties and municipalities to deploy and operate a unified public WiFi network with complete coverage wherever the public access density exceeds some small number of people (the number in which at least 10 people an hour are statistically likely to be present). The Feds should back that mandate by hosting WiFi and Internet interconnect infrastructure in any Federal building at Federal cost, as designed by the municipality/county. And pay for the entire operation with a Federal tax on private wireless network businesses, like mobile telcos. The telcos should pay for the service to them that offloading to public WiFi delivers, but the public should organize the effort and reduce the cost with existing infrastructure.
--
make install -not war
No, the telcos don't have to pass the cost to the consumer. They can pay for it out of their profits, which are huge. If there's a problem with that, it's in the protections they have in a cartel, where they don't have to compete with each other. Which is probably the most essential reform that Congress should pass, and this kind of development forces that issue into the open.
The idea that all costs to business are simply transferred 100% to the business' customers, ignoring the source of funds in profits, is to be believed only by the same people who believe that tax cuts without service cuts are possible by ignoring the debt that's created instead.
--
make install -not war
So are they just going to plop these APs on their network? Are they going to use a single preshared key for everyone? A proper wifi implementation that doesn't compromise their network security costs money so with this mandate, they should also mandate security standards. But lets see 15 million / 9000 federal buildings = $1666 per building... I guess these buildings only have 2 APs max because at Cisco or Aruba's price tag, that's all you'll be getting. Not including new security equipment and installation of all these goodies. Good Job govt, you just created the path of least resistance for hackers.
Senators aren't exactly tech savvy. This bill proves it. To the ignorant, this seems like a good idea. It would be better if they outlawed wifi + wireless access inside federal buildings. Many federal installations do not allow any wireless technology (wifi, cell, other) or portable memory or cameras due to security concerns.
To discourage people from accessing WikiLeaks on their cell phones, since it will obviously be blocked on all these Federal Wi-Fi networks. ;)
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
I couldn't agree more. This is one of those good ideas we just can't afford, especially with the country's present financial condition.
Oh for the love of Pete! You spend over half a trillion dollars a year on your military, as much as the rest of the other militaries on the planet combined. Cut your military spending by a few percent and you could pay for proper schools, the space program, and still have money left over to put wifi in your government offices.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
We have VIOP at work, a manufacturing facility and it cost us dearly. For the feds or state to do this it will take lots of money, Controllers, Control software, location appliances, POE switches for access, distribution switches, core switches and access points every 50-100' in a grid for the coverage area. This is to support Cisco WIFI phones that have CCX v3/4/5/ and can use 802.11a since the 802.11b/g is just a lot of potential congestion( video or bridge links ).
In Cisco land if you cover ONE area you need 4 access points, if one of the four goes down they all go to 100mw. :-)
If you are going to do it right it will be a couple million $ per year just in Cisco maintenance contracts. :-)
Sure you can do it a cheaper way, but do you want it to work or do you want to spend the rest of your life chasing issues.
I think the politicians are thinking that WIFI is like at home, one $49 access point router and you are done. In the real world of enterprise networking that never happens. If you do you get kicked in the jimmy when the CEO is trying to connect his iPad to your single AP and someone across the street is doing a DOS on the thing or trying to hack his iPad.
The Average Joe
Friggin EXTEND THE TAX CUTS, and STOP SPENDING more money.
Time is limited, and they are wasting it.
Do you house representatives not understand English?
Next up.... the The Federal Back-Orifice Act of 2010.
All federal buildings required to have computers with back orifice installed, plugged into the LAN, not blocked by Firewall, with a published IP address, username, and password, to help reduce load on Internet service provider proxy servers and improve government oversight.
We don't have the cash for this let the cell phone companies pay for it.
By which, you mean, the consumer will pay for it.
ANY costs assigned to the cell carriers will be directly (or even inflatedly) passed onto the consumer. Period. Heck, if you asked them, they would admit as much.
ANY costs assigned to "the government" will be directly (or even inflatedly) passed onto the tax payer. Period.
with technologies from HSPA+ to LTE improving available bandwidth per MHz exponentially
Not to get all nitpicky, but I think there is this guy Shannon who would disagree with you. (Also this has a more concise formula.)
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Where's the Bill Gates / Borg icon?
We may be in a bit of a recession, but at a federal level the 15million is so insignificant compared to the rest of the budget. Comparing it against 2010 federal budget of $2.381 trillion makes it out to only 0.00062% (six ten-thousandths of a percent) of all other spending. In anycase, this would be akin to thinking that we shouldn't have let the government invest in the deployment of telephone lines. Technology is moving along, and frankly this comes in at a very cheap price.
Bills don't write themselves, you know.
ANY costs assigned to the cell carriers will be directly (or even inflatedly) passed onto the consumer. Period.
That's not really how markets work. Cell carriers will charge whatever they think will get them maximum profits. Input costs... the cost of doing business... only have an indirect effect upon output charges.
They charge as much as they think they can get away with. If their price structure is flexible enough to "pass the costs on," then they weren't charging enough to begin with.
And of course cell carriers will tell you that they will pass charges onto the consumer. They want the consumer thinking that anything which lowers their input costs are going to lower the cost to the consumer. That's only indirectly true, and if history has taught us anything it's the net effect is more profitable companies.
Not that there is anything wrong with profitable companies. That's the goal, after all. But we don't need to subsidize them.
The ______ Agenda
cept it is a sinister plan to control and monitor workers data connections. bwwwaaaaaaaa
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
But if we do that, how will those defense contractor executives take home their multi-billion dollar bonuses?
What I find really sad about the whole thing is that for all the money we spend on the defense budget, VA (Veterans Administration) hospitals are generally lame. I mean, seriously? All that and you can't even take care of people? What the fuck.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe it's better if they update WiFi to use a TDMA protocol, make it a free standard and then think about using Wifi to help cell networks.
Anyway, I guess it will last only for 3 strikes according to their own ACTA law.
No need to do anything about stuff like a budget that was supposed to be passed in October. Lets just argue over stupid pidley shit like this.
Yeah, cause that is going to be so easy to manage and support, you clearly haven't worked with any thing more then home networks.
Does anyone have a link to the text of the bill?
I did a quick search and couldn't find it. Why are they calling for installation of WiFi hotspots to lessen load on cell networks? Did anyone tell them that just because a phone has a WiFi radio doesn't mean it can make calls over WiFi.
Are you telling me everyone who wants wireless internet in federal buildings has to use a Cell phone data network. If that is the case, then they absoulty need to install WiFi (you know like everyone did 10 years ago), though $15 Million does seem to much).
Does anyone hear work in IT for the GSA? Might be able to clear this up.
Come ON! A wifi acces point is like...what? 50 bucks?
Pay for it out of the reduced market-clearing prices for higher-limit data plans and data overage charges that result from more access to WiFi?
Pay more attention to the people that YOU put into office. Once you start giving a crap, things will change.
Easier said than done:
1. every billion dollars spent on the military probably lines the pocket of some fat cat / politician with a million dollars
2. being a military super-power allows you to force your will on smaller nations
So nice of them to sniff network traffic and collect all those plaintext email account passwords and associate them with network IDs so they'll know who you are when you appear elsewhere on the 'net.
The PANOPTICON (http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm) is being implemented.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1891254&cid=34413838 TheEndOfDays likes stalking and trolling others (as well as starting it up as shown right there)? I like how he was put into his rightful place here in the end http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1891254&cid=34418274 where TheEndOfDays ran like the trolling little coward he really is, unable to back up his trolling and stalking crap. TheEndofDays, it seems that You like starting up hassles, but in the end, you always "eat it", LMAO. You're telling others here how to make good on an argument? You run from them, and rightfully so: You only showed your trolling stalker online, right in the URL above.
the poor have practically no usage for corporate law
Companies that make and/or sell things to poor people have use for such laws, and such laws interact with the consumer protection laws that (possibly disproportionately) benefit poor people.