A - No.
B - I put paragraphs in the post. they didn't post.
C - There is not one substantive point in your reply, so I turned notification off. I'm done.
This entire article screams, "I have never patronized a business !" If firms are trying to maximize profit, consumers are trying to maximize utility. When confronted with non-free wi-fi, we must either pay at least $6 an hour to the establishment itself, or, worse, $30 to a company that is one component of an oligopoly and therefore only covers one of our local hangouts. Either is a waste of time. You can tell because you never see anyone using them. In Europe, providers are beginning to blanket city centers. Here, there's very little movement in that direction.
As for university towns, I don't know where you went to school, but when I visit my alma mater, the coffee shops are devoid of laptop users because all of campus is available to them, including six floors of comfortable furniture in the library. Besides, the people who give this excuse all act like: A) this problem is new to coffee shops; and B) their employees are nervous about asking loitering customers. Neither have ever been true.
And I know that business owners will not be held liable for piracy on their premises because the older form of venue called the internet cafe has already dodged liability on this issue.
As for maintenance, a $30 WAP with a $43/mo. cable service doesn't have any maintenance. If it stops working, you call the cable company. That approach works for the businesses in my area (has universities but not really a college town) who offer free wi-fi. The reason most of them have done it is because it draws more affluent customers, and richer customers spend more money and are nicer to the employees, which drives down the turnover rate, which saves a hell of a lot more money than $30 plus $43/month.
I'm sure there are reasons not to offer your customers the contemporary definiton of a welcoming environment, but the ones you named are certainly not the real ones. I think it's mostly an example of the American prejudice against offering someting for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
A - No. B - I put paragraphs in the post. they didn't post. C - There is not one substantive point in your reply, so I turned notification off. I'm done.
This entire article screams, "I have never patronized a business !" If firms are trying to maximize profit, consumers are trying to maximize utility. When confronted with non-free wi-fi, we must either pay at least $6 an hour to the establishment itself, or, worse, $30 to a company that is one component of an oligopoly and therefore only covers one of our local hangouts. Either is a waste of time. You can tell because you never see anyone using them. In Europe, providers are beginning to blanket city centers. Here, there's very little movement in that direction. As for university towns, I don't know where you went to school, but when I visit my alma mater, the coffee shops are devoid of laptop users because all of campus is available to them, including six floors of comfortable furniture in the library. Besides, the people who give this excuse all act like: A) this problem is new to coffee shops; and B) their employees are nervous about asking loitering customers. Neither have ever been true. And I know that business owners will not be held liable for piracy on their premises because the older form of venue called the internet cafe has already dodged liability on this issue. As for maintenance, a $30 WAP with a $43/mo. cable service doesn't have any maintenance. If it stops working, you call the cable company. That approach works for the businesses in my area (has universities but not really a college town) who offer free wi-fi. The reason most of them have done it is because it draws more affluent customers, and richer customers spend more money and are nicer to the employees, which drives down the turnover rate, which saves a hell of a lot more money than $30 plus $43/month. I'm sure there are reasons not to offer your customers the contemporary definiton of a welcoming environment, but the ones you named are certainly not the real ones. I think it's mostly an example of the American prejudice against offering someting for nothing.