Hve you noticed this in any of your cities? Do you utilize this?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/05/04/life.wireless.reut/

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A number of U.S. cities are becoming giant wireless "hot spots," where Internet users will be able to log on from the beach or a bus stop, a trend that's triggering a fierce backlash from telecom and cable giants.

"We look at this as another utility, just like water, sewer, parks and recreation, that our communities should have," said St. Cloud, Florida, Mayor Glen Sangiovanni, who hopes to provide free wireless service to the entire city by the fall.

At a conference this week, officials from dozens of local governments compared notes, listened to pitches from vendors and discussed ways to counter the lobbying of telecommunications giants that have sought to block them at the state level.

Free or discounted wireless service can spur economic development, improve police patrols and other city services and encourage Internet use in poorer neighborhoods, they said.

Slightly more than 100 U.S. cities -- as big as Philadelphia and as small as Nantucket, Massachusetts -- are setting up wireless networks. Conference organizer Daniel Aghion said close to 1,000 local governments worldwide have plans in the works.

The trend has prompted an intense backlash from the large telecom and cable providers that sell most broadband access in the United States. At their request, 13 states have passed laws restricting cities setting up their own networks, and several others are considering such bans.

"With so many other issues challenging municipalities today, why on earth should cities waste millions of taxpayer dollars to compete with carriers already offering high-speed Internet service?" said Allison Remsen, spokeswoman for the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents incumbents like SBC Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications.

City officials said they don't want to compete head on with commercial providers but aren't going to be held hostage to their profit concerns.

Providers have shown no interest in setting up broadband wireless service or offering free or discounted rates, they said. Sometimes they refuse to provide any broadband service at all.

"We begged them to deliver the service -- we didn't want to be in this business," said Scottsburg, Indiana, Mayor Bill Graham, who said local businesses threatened to leave his town before it set up its own wireless network.

The legal battles seem to have only increased interest among city officials, especially after squabbles over a Pennsylvania state law made national headlines last year.

"It helped to bring to light what the telecommunications industry was attempting to do," said Philadelphia technology manager Dianah Neff.

Others said the threat of a ban at the state level has spurred them to action.

"We're acting pretty quickly for a municipality of our size, because we don't like to be pre-empted," said Lindy Fleming McGuire, a Chicago City Council staffer.

Smaller wireless startups are rushing to provide the equipment and expertise needed to run city networks.

"Munis don't want to own this at all; they just want the service," said Robert Ford, chief executive of NextPhase Wireless, a service provider.

Rio Rancho, New Mexico, brought in wireless provider OttawaWireless because incumbents didn't reach many areas, assistant city administrator Peggy McCarthy said. Now that the network is up and running, the incumbents' service has grown more competitive, she said.

"The lethargy and apathy with which we had been given DSL and cable have both changed," she said.

Some cities, including Spokane, Washington, found they could easily set up wireless service when they upgrade their emergency communications networks with a little help from the Homeland Security Department. The federal department awarded $925 million last year for communications upgrades.





"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb

***The OKMuhajideen***

this is going to turn out like the U.S. postal service. how is a company supposed to compete with the govt who can offer lower prices because they dont need to make a profit because they get tax money?
furthermore, as a taxpayer who already pays for a broadband connection, why should my tax money go to a service i dont need?

and of the same quality you would bin your broadband provider and exploit the free service?

Btw, what is the existing cost of broadband in the states? I'm guessing it's cheap as chips...

>and of the same quality you would bin your broadband provider
>and exploit the free service?
>

of course i would exploit the free service. and are the cable companies supposed to sit by and let the govt take money right out of their hands? if you owned a cable company would you just let the govt do this? of course you wouldnt.

>Btw, what is the existing cost of broadband in the states? I'm
>guessing it's cheap as chips...

im not sure the cheapest but i think comcast is like 45 a month for broadband which is 5mbit connection.

>of course i would exploit the free service. and are the cable
>companies supposed to sit by and let the govt take money right
>out of their hands? if you owned a cable company would you
>just let the govt do this? of course you wouldnt.

why the Republican government would make part public an existing private industry, which is so cheap already... I'm sure there will be a bunch of conspiracy theorists on here who would say the government simply wants to keep tabs on everyone!!!

well it certainly would be easier for the govt to keep tabs on everyone this way. personally, im more scared of corrupt govt officials than a business relying on my money to operate

Just like there are many areas where the major companies have avoided providing service bc of the high cost and low profit potential. Like other utilities, it's about trying to bring the benefits of certain innovations to everybody.

I think it's fine for local govts to offer a base level of internet connectivity for everyone. The big telephone and cable services aren't limited from delivering the content that drives most of their profits anyway.

The municipalities have not been satisfied with the roll out of broadband by the private sector.

The service is spotty and there is definite redlining against areas where providing the service isn't profitable enough.

Rather than step up to the plate and provide universal service ala the POTS network, the telcos would rather lobby for protectionism, in direct conflict with the intent of a municipality's goal of providing a service for the greater public good.

One more case for making corporate lobbying illegal and why libertarians are assholes.

________________________________________
Smackin' ponks in the mouf for 2005

Listening To

~ Bah Samba "Four"
~ The Rurals "Rural Living"
~ Rewind 4
~ Silhouette Brown - Silhouette Brown
~ Mark De Clive Lowe - Tide's Arising
~ Common - Be
~ Raheem Devaug

13 states have pushed through legislation banning this initiative. Who said businessmen and politicians don't make strange bedfellows?

>13 states have pushed through legislation banning this
>initiative. Who said businessmen and politicians don't make
>strange bedfellows?

every municipality in this country has a contract with a cable provider. companies bid on the contract and the lowest bidder wins. we allow this to happen beause we do not want our neighborhoods stricken with a hundred different lines running across streets past trees and what not. now we have wireless technology which completely solves the problem. however companies dont yet think it is profitable for them to get involved with wireless just yet. the govt can provide it, albeit very expensively, as a free service. if the govt goes ahead, broadband companies will be at a huge disadvantage. they will have to invest in very expensive technology which will most likey see their yearly earning drop. then they wont be able to supplement their income because they will lose customers to the free govt service.

Now I see

Putting another transmitter on a cell tower has to be infinitely cheaper than burying thousands of miles of cable or fiber optics.

The only reason the current companies haven't exploited wireless is because they've spent billions upgrading their current lines. They have to show it was worthwhile until they can perfect the interactive tv services they've been promising for years.

Also, I have little sympathy for these companies, particularly the cable companies. There are so few competitors and the way choices are made now, it's unlikely your cable service will change unless the company goes bankrupt or truly pisses off most of its customers.

Prices rise yearly to "improve service" yet they say it would be too expensive for us to get the ability to choose what we want to watch a la carte, meaning we're forced into either choosing too much service or too little.

If you try to escape to satellite TV but aren't within range of DSL, they just jack up the price of broadband to make up for your defection. I'd like this wireless internet option just so I'd have the ability to completely drop my affiliation with Comcast.

>Putting another transmitter on a cell tower has to be
>infinitely cheaper than burying thousands of miles of cable or
>fiber optics.
>
>The only reason the current companies haven't exploited
>wireless is because they've spent billions upgrading their
>current lines. They have to show it was worthwhile until they
>can perfect the interactive tv services they've been promising
>for years.

im sure if a company like comcast thought it was profitable to provide wireless on a wide scale they would be working on it.

>>Putting another transmitter on a cell tower has to be
>>infinitely cheaper than burying thousands of miles of cable
>or
>>fiber optics.
>>
>>The only reason the current companies haven't exploited
>>wireless is because they've spent billions upgrading their
>>current lines. They have to show it was worthwhile until
>they
>>can perfect the interactive tv services they've been
>promising
>>for years.
>
>im sure if a company like comcast thought it was profitable to
>provide wireless on a wide scale they would be working on it.

Like I mentioned, those companies are about providing service over their private networks. Their goal is to make that private network as valuable as profitable as possible.


Also the cable business is more protected right now. The cable businesses largely don't compete against each other bc building competing networks would be prohibitively expensive and the industry has consolidated to the point the remaining companies are largely similar. COX cable is the only local alternative to Comcast but their prices and services are largely similar. The only time my cable company has changed in the last 20+ years has been when a smaller one was bought up by the larger ones.


A satellite and DSL combo is the only real competition but it's severly hampered by accessibility issues (satellite isn't an optin if you don't have a southern exposure and DSL services have limited range).

Company's in high barrier to entry industries usually avoid competing in low barrier markets.

>Like I mentioned, those companies are about providing service
>over their private networks. Their goal is to make that
>private network as valuable as profitable as possible.
>
>
>Also the cable business is better right now. The cable
>businesses largely don't compete against each other (the only
>time my cable company has changed in the last 20+ years has
>been when a smaller one was bought up by the larger ones). A
>satellite and DSL combo is the only real competition but it's
>severly hampered by accessibility issues (satellite isn't an
>optin if you don't have a southern exposure and DSL services
>have limited range).
>
>Company's in high barrier to entry industries usually avoid
>competing in low barrier markets.

so are you saying that cable companies will no t be effected by this? or are yo usaying that the govt should fill in the gaps that the cable companies dont reach so that everybody can have access?

The govt (with our money) pays for the roads and railways we use for our physical mobility. I think the same model should be used for the internet. It's something that can benefit the mobility of knowledge in this society.

but you can get free access to the internet at the public library. and why should my tax money go to a service i dont need? are you suggesting all internet access should be nationalized?

Heck, I would drop my cable modem in a minute.....actually before I had it...I was leaching on to someone elses WIFI signal somewhere in the apartment complex but then I felt guilty...

but, there are other ways cable companies can profit from this without lobbying to have the little guys stonewalled and blacklisted...thats just plain piggish.


"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb

***The OKMuhajideen***

everyone would use the free service (paid for by taxpayers of course so it wouldnt really be free and it would prolly cost way more in taxes than paying for a private service). another side note, every utility we pay for through taxes is LARGELY inflated. gee, why do you think that is? ok ill help...its because nobody can compete with the govt!

>everyone would use the free service (paid for by taxpayers of
>course so it wouldnt really be free and it would prolly cost
>way more in taxes than paying for a private service). another
>side note, every utility we pay for through taxes is LARGELY
>inflated. gee, why do you think that is? ok ill help...its
>because nobody can compete with the govt!

But when you leave things to private enterprise, aren't there always people underserved bc a profit can't be made from them? We wouldn't have a national road system nor nearly universal penetration of telephones if these things were left to private enterprise.

>>everyone would use the free service (paid for by taxpayers
>of
>>course so it wouldnt really be free and it would prolly cost
>>way more in taxes than paying for a private service).
>another
>>side note, every utility we pay for through taxes is LARGELY
>>inflated. gee, why do you think that is? ok ill help...its
>>because nobody can compete with the govt!
>
>But when you leave things to private enterprise, aren't there
>always people underserved bc a profit can't be made from them?
>We wouldn't have a national road system nor nearly universal
>penetration of telephones if these things were left to private
>enterprise.

i dont think people are entitled to internet access just like i dont think people are entitled to a job or a house or a car. you work for what you get and if a service that you want isnt offered in your area then tough luck. move.

Since the internet is a comunication device, it's ludicrous to compare it to getting a free car, house or job.

A better comparison (to me) would be to our phone lines. We have a universal and robust phone system that ensures public safety and the integrity of our nation (almost every part of the nation is at least reachable by phone, if by no other means). Is that an unnecessary entitlement?

Right now, it's mostly rural areas trying to keep up with their more connected cousins in the city. They're underserved by the current providers and it hampers their ability to attract high-tech and internet jobs to replace the agricultural and manufacturing jobs being lost.

Offering free wireless internet is their way of offering services that people want and need (would you live somewhere where dialup was your only option?). I think the trend will be for rural and ex-urban communities to offer more and more free internet since it'll allow them to compete for the jobs that usually go to the inner suburbs and cities.

Finally, the great thing about your suggestion to "move" is that it applies to you too. If the people in yor community eventually decide they want to pay for universal internet through taxes, you can just move to another community yourself.

>Since the internet is a comunication device, it's ludicrous
>to compare it to getting a free car, house or job.
>
>A better comparison (to me) would be to our phone lines. We
>have a universal and robust phone system that ensures public
>safety and the integrity of our nation (almost every part of
>the nation is at least reachable by phone, if by no other
>means). Is that an unnecessary entitlement?

yes it is unnecessary. however, if you feel entitled to a phone line you can move to an area where a private business will offer it to you for a price.

>
>Right now, it's mostly rural areas trying to keep up with
>their more connected cousins in the city. They're underserved
>by the current providers and it hampers their ability to
>attract high-tech and internet jobs to replace the
>agricultural and manufacturing jobs being lost.

too bad. move. my taxes shouldnt pay for them.
>
>Offering free wireless internet is their way of offering
>services that people want and need (would you live somewhere
>where dialup was your only option?). I think the trend will be
>for rural and ex-urban communities to offer more and more free
>internet since it'll allow them to compete for the jobs that
>usually go to the inner suburbs and cities.

if someone 'wants or needs' a service badly they move to get it. you dont raise my taxes just so yokel joe shmo can have access to the information super highway (something i pay to have). if he is worried about competing for a job he moves.


>
>Finally, the great thing about your suggestion to "move" is
>that it applies to you too. If the people in yor community
>eventually decide they want to pay for universal internet
>through taxes, you can just move to another community
>yourself.

here is a suggestion. make the people that use this service pay for it and the people that dont use the service have an exemption on their taxes. if you want to start a govt operated internet system (good luck, everything the govt runs is inefficient) then make the people who complain about not having access pay for it and let me have an exemption on my taxes.

decades ago is a perfect analogy. i think it's overwhemingly in the public's interest to make the net as available as possible somehow.



----------------------------
www.summerproleague.com/photo_gallery.htm

Those who cannot see where they came
from will never get to where
they are going.
-Jose Rizal

www.myspace.com/13923099

>but you can get free access to the internet at the public
>library. and why should my tax money go to a service i dont
>need? are you suggesting all internet access should be
>nationalized?

Nah, everything shouldn't be nationalized. They've spent alot to build their optic and cable lines so I wouldn't support just taking their networks.

But I think there's an opportunity to offer a base level of service universally over a medium that's not owned by any company (the air). I agree with some of what Abdurashid said too. The companies can still offer some kind of value added service. Some would still pay more for more bandwidth or a more reliable service (wireless connections will be somewat flaky in some areas).

I have a feeling you're the kind to virulently question ANY govt spending so I dunno if I could convince you that any expense would be worth it.

i dont think my tax money should go to something i will not use

to adopt the same view you have, then you won't have to.

On the other hand, how do you feel about using other people's tax dollars, especially those that didn't want the services you've enjoyed? I'm sure there are many people who hate to pay for public schools since they don't have kids or they're sending their kids to private schools. Or maybe they never drive on your side of town, yet they paid for the roads you use daily.

Do you feel any guilt that you're standard of living is augmented by their unwilling money?

i think everything should be privatized. does that answer your question?

Which is why nobody takes you seriously.

LOL.
________________________________________
Smackin' ponks in the mouf for 2005

Listening To

~ Bah Samba "Four"
~ The Rurals "Rural Living"
~ Rewind 4
~ Silhouette Brown - Silhouette Brown
~ Mark De Clive Lowe - Tide's Arising
~ Common - Be
~ Raheem Devaug

I asked if you feel guilt that your standard of life was created by public institutions that took money from other privately-minded citizens like yourself?

>I asked if you feel guilt that your standard of life was
>created by public institutions that took money from other
>privately-minded citizens like yourself?

guilt isnt the right word. i feel regret. i know that without the govt meddling in every little affair my quality of life as i know it would be 100x better. lets stop giving the govt more control over our lives!

.........as did the Interstate Highway System & Universal Telephone.

Government programs that allow more people (particularly those in underserved areas) to take advantage of various technological innovations that foster communication and/or transportation, has proven to be a good thing in the past.

We're talking about basic WiFi here, it's not going to be as robust or as dependable as your Cable Modem, nor is it going to have the value added services which generate the bulk of the cable company's profits.

Considering our Broadband Infrastructure is dial-up compared to South Korea's system, pushing the Cable Companies to roll-out more innovations due to your local municipality having a baseline level of service, not to mention being more competitive on price, is a good idea.

In S. Korea the Govt. putting its weight behind building the most robust broadband network on the planet, has resulted in an astonishing rate of innovation in that country. It's not a stretch to say that the economy has more than benefited from any Investments made by the Govt./money paid by Tax Payers.

To go back to your mail analogy, Fedex and UPS can't make a profit delivering mail for 37 cents a letter, but they can make a ton of money shipping packages and sending overnight mail.

The Cable Companies will do the same, with respect to providing a higher level of service and will perhaps stop screwing the customer, with the utter lack of competition the Cable Companies and Telcos are really screwing the consumer when it comes to providing certain services and due to the lack of competition there is little anyone can do about it.

I think that in the end, the Consumer and the Cable companies will be better off.




Peace,











M2

...does the gov't going wireless serve the greater good of the community? And the answer is OF COURSE!!!

You have countries, not just local gov'ts, across the globe already doing this. South Korea, for example. We are already falling behind other "developed" nations technologically and in other ways because we are trying to appease lobbyists and corporations.

Imagine having the ability to pack up your laptop and go anywhere you want and have instant access to the web, or your PDA, or any other computer device. Think of all of the other benefits to the community this will have because of everything you can do via the internet.

And what about all of those people who can't afford internet access? This will definitely help to fill in some of the information and learning gap between the wealthy and poor.

You sound like you'd be against Universal Healthcare and lowered prices for presciption drugs, too. The corporations are getting and staying fat off of things that should be public services. Screw them and the AZT bus they came in on...

Rules to post by (Break them, get deleted): http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe. 3rd World people, remember where ya coming from!

if people think this is sooooo important to have why dont they pay my share of the tax increase...

Rules to post by (Break them, get deleted): http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe. 3rd World people, remember where ya coming from!

>...does the gov't going wireless serve the greater good of
>the community? And the answer is OF COURSE!!!

no, they are doing it to line their pockets with a service that is extreme;ly cheap and is available to the vast mjority of americans.
>
>You have countries, not just local gov'ts, across the globe
>already doing this. South Korea, for example. We are already
>falling behind other "developed" nations technologically and
>in other ways because we are trying to appease lobbyists and
>corporations.

no, we are falling behind beause corporations are still paying off large investments into old technology. its the burden of being first in a global economy. we make it, other countries use the technological information and improve upon it at the fraction of the cost.

>Imagine having the ability to pack up your laptop and go
>anywhere you want and have instant access to the web, or your
>PDA, or any other computer device. Think of all of the other
>benefits to the community this will have because of everything
>you can do via the internet.

thats great...of course if it were that easy im sure IPSs would be all over it...
>
>And what about all of those people who can't afford internet
>access? This will definitely help to fill in some of the
>information and learning gap between the wealthy and poor.

comcast cale, the largest provider in the US offers internet access at 50 bucks a month. verizon online dsl is 30 bucks a month. if the internet is that imortant perhaps people should reallign their budget.
>
>You sound like you'd be against Universal Healthcare and
>lowered prices for presciption drugs, too. The corporations
>are getting and staying fat off of things that should be
>public services. Screw them and the AZT bus they came in
>on...

the govt would get fat off of these things because the govt has a monopoly. they dont compete. they dont have to make a profit. they dont bow to the consumer.

Say for instance that you're a Internet Hosting company and you're paying an "upstream provider" for access? It's pennies on the dollar compared to what we pay now.

E.g. It is a fatuous argument to claim that paying $50 for Broadband service is cheap, when you consider it costs a fraction of that to provide it.


The Govt. isn't going to be making a profit off of this or "lining its pockets"

As for the US just being "First" and now we have to pay off old tech Investments, while others get to run wild with our innovations and improve upon them isn't quite correct:

-Here in the US we made a lot of STUPID investments in infrastructure and technology that is no longer used or wasn't as adopted as people thought it would be. Technology that was being developed nearly simultaneously around the world and our neighbors just made better decisions.

-Don't confuse the size of our economy in terms of the # of people and money involved with being a technological leader, Japan and S. Korea have been head of us in many ways since the 80's.

-A lot of the innovations of the last 10 years happened via people all over the world creating things and in some cases, the foreigners were ahead of us from Jump. For example, Europe's cell phone service has been ahead of ours for years simply because they went in a different direction due to having a stronger demand for cell phones than US, (less space for land lines).

-Since our foreign neighbors produce more engineers than we do, we wouldn't have had our Tech Boom without those engineers coming to the US for school. Now a lot of those engineers aren't even bothering coming to the US.

-We've been doing a lot of research and manufacturing overseas since the 80's, meaning that we've been paying foreigners to come up with our innovations and build our products for some time now.

-Yes, the US innovates a lot - but the reason that other countries are moving ahead of us isn't due to us just paying for the first round of new tech, as other countries have been moving haead of us for nearly two decades now and in many cases, started the first round with us, made the same investments and than accelerated ahead.








Peace,












M2

>
>Say for instance that you're a Internet Hosting company and
>you're paying an "upstream provider" for access? It's pennies
>on the dollar compared to what we pay now.
>
>E.g. It is a fatuous argument to claim that paying $50 for
>Broadband service is cheap, when you consider it costs a
>fraction of that to provide it.

what are you trying to say? because companies try to make a profit we shouldnt consider any service they provide as cheap?
>
>
>The Govt. isn't going to be making a profit off of this or
>"lining its pockets"

of course they wouldnt...the govt would never raise taxes higher than needed to fund a program and move the money into a local slush fund...


>As for the US just being "First" and now we have to pay off
>old tech Investments, while others get to run wild with our
>innovations and improve upon them isn't quite correct:
>
>-Here in the US we made a lot of STUPID investments in
>infrastructure and technology that is no longer used or wasn't
>as adopted as people thought it would be. Technology that was
>being developed nearly simultaneously around the world and our
>neighbors just made better decisions.
>
>-Don't confuse the size of our economy in terms of the # of
>people and money involved with being a technological leader,
>Japan and S. Korea have been head of us in many ways since the
>80's.

and this justifies free wireless internet how?

>-A lot of the innovations of the last 10 years happened via
>people all over the world creating things and in some cases,
>the foreigners were ahead of us from Jump. For example,
>Europe's cell phone service has been ahead of ours for years
>simply because they went in a different direction due to
>having a stronger demand for cell phones than US, (less space
>for land lines).
>
>-Since our foreign neighbors produce more engineers than we
>do, we wouldn't have had our Tech Boom without those engineers
>coming to the US for school. Now a lot of those engineers
>aren't even bothering coming to the US.
>
>-We've been doing a lot of research and manufacturing overseas
>since the 80's, meaning that we've been paying foreigners to
>come up with our innovations and build our products for some
>time now.
>
>-Yes, the US innovates a lot - but the reason that other
>countries are moving ahead of us isn't due to us just paying
>for the first round of new tech, as other countries have been
>moving haead of us for nearly two decades now and in many
>cases, started the first round with us, made the same
>investments and than accelerated ahead.

and how does this relate ot funding free wireless internet?

.......has always paid dividends for the economy.

If we want to remain the #1 economy and maintain our hold as the #1 innovator, it's going to take some additional Govt. investment, particularly when we're rapidly losing our spot at #1 (Arguably we don't have it anymore) and don't produce the engineers to keep up.

Making sure the people are able to leverage more technology is a good idea.

Now if you want to be short sighted and whine about taxes, than fine - but don't get salty 30 years from now when we're not the #1 economy anymore.




Peace,









M2

a city govt paying out 10-15 million dollars for a wireless program that not one single ISP wants to take part in is hardly 'investing in technology'

Last week I attended this event:

"The Boston WiFi Summit was a hot spot yesterday for business executives, politicians and residents looking to break down the "digital divide.'' Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the crowd that he envisioned wireless Internet access throughout Boston, "fostered through a public-private partnership.'' Menino also boasted of the Main Streets program's success in implementing WiFi technology in Rosindale Village last week, with plans to do the same for West Roxbury next week." - http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=83919

Here's a link to the video blog:

http://www.votejohntobin.com/ (scroll towards the middle).

Boston plans to learn from Philly...and get buy-in from all constituents. The community folks were less than optimistic.