NationStates Jolt Archive

Linkage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4351400.stm)
Wi-fi cities spark hotspot debate
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington


A growing number of cities in the US are treating high-speed internet as a basic amenity for citizens, like running water or the electricity grid. But as the concept expands so does the battle with big business.


Philadelphia compares municipal wi-fi to the city's water and electricity
Earlier this month, Philadelphia - one of America's oldest and most historic cities - thrust itself onto the technological frontline by announcing plans to build the biggest municipal wireless internet system in the country.

The 135-square-mile network will be built and managed by Earthlink, and will offer low-income residents a service for about $10 (£5.70) a month.

A clutch of other cities are hoping to follow suit with free or low-cost services aimed at reconnecting poor communities, growing local businesses and giving new flexibility to the emergency services.

In a couple of weeks, San Francisco will announce the results of its call for proposals on providing a wireless service to the city's 750,000 inhabitants.

One bid that sent shockwaves through the industry came from Google, which offered to blanket the city with free wireless high-speed internet access - funded by advertising.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said: "This is inevitable - wi-fi. It is long overdue. It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information."

Article continues...
I thought this was pretty interesting, seems that American cities are starting to see wi-fi as similar to water or electricity. Blanketing cities in wireless has pissed off the big providers, who stand to lose big time on this, after building cable systems.

Anyone know anything more about this, cos I'm waiting for it to happen over in the UK. Should be cool...

I believe Estonia declared a couple of months back that internet access was a basic human right...I'll see if I can find a link to anything about it.
Here we go: http://www.time.com/time/europe/specials/eeurope/field/estonia.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3603943.stm

Right to Comuncations....

ya I can see that.

Alot of the big open places where no one lives have Wi-Fi access. Big telecom companies (Bellsouth, Verizon, etc) are fighting tooth and nail to prevent this from happening in big cities.

A fundamental right to WiFi ... Only in California.

Doesn't that seem wrong to anyone else?

not to peaple in Estonia

A fundamental right to WiFi ... Only in California.

Doesn't that seem wrong to anyone else?

I thought the same thing at first, but when you really think about it, wouldn't you be able to say the same thing about electricity a hundred years ago? It was basically an amenity, unneeded for living, but very helpful.

WiFi gives one access to a vast amount of information and communication opportunities. This can be very useful, just as useful as electricity was to people a hundred years ago.

This does, however, flush my idea for a business down the toilet >_<

I thought the same thing at first, but when you really think about it, wouldn't you be able to say the same thing about electricity a hundred years ago? It was basically an amenity, unneeded for living, but very helpful.

WiFi gives one access to a vast amount of information and communication opportunities. This can be very useful, just as useful as electricity was to people a hundred years ago.

This does, however, flush my idea for a business down the toilet >_<
Not necessarily. I was reading about this on yahoo, apparently in the middle of bloody nowhere in Ohio or something there is a huge Wi-Fi cloud run by some independently wealthy guy. Private use of the cloud is free, companies and city agencies using it pay a fee and get bonus features from using it.

I thought the same thing at first, but when you really think about it, wouldn't you be able to say the same thing about electricity a hundred years ago? It was basically an amenity, unneeded for living, but very helpful.

WiFi gives one access to a vast amount of information and communication opportunities. This can be very useful, just as useful as electricity was to people a hundred years ago.

This does, however, flush my idea for a business down the toilet >_<
The key is that electricity is very useful, but no one has a fundamental right to an electrical connection. Commerce has made electricity widely available, but last time I check, it wasn't guaranteed in the Constitution or by Amendments.

The key is that electricity is very useful, but no one has a fundamental right to an electrical connection. Commerce has made electricity widely available, but last time I check, it wasn't guaranteed in the Constitution or by Amendments.
PSSST. The Constitution and Amendments don't "guarantee" anything.

The question isnt if it is a "right" or not, but if technology evolution will transform WiFi in a public good, in the economical sense of the word, and if it will become actually economical cheaper and more efficient to have one single provider of Internet to a whole area/country, than to have several different companies competing to provide internet access.

It works a bit like telephones until some 20 years ago; Every country in the world had a state owned phone company, because it was actually cheaper to maintain just one company, than a whole lot of them (and since there can be no competition in a monopoly, they were state owned and/or heavily regulated). Offcourse, then technology changed again, and private competition started to be considered more efficient than the old monopolies, ence the re-privitization of most of them.

The question isnt if it is a "right" or not, but if technology evolution will transform WiFi in a public good, in the economical sense of the word, and if it will become actually economical cheaper and more efficient to have one single provider of Internet to a whole area/country, than to have several different companies competing to provide internet access.

It works a bit like telephones until some 20 years ago; Every country in the world had a state owned phone company, because it was actually cheaper to maintain just one company, than a whole lot of them (and since there can be no competition in a monopoly, they were state owned and/or heavily regulated). Offcourse, then technology changed again, and private competition started to be considered more efficient than the old monopolies, ence the re-privitization of most of them.

Over here, state-supervised monopoly = technological stagnation.

Ever wonder why our telecom companies were so slow to adopt GSM?

Because of the old laws that still constrained what's left of the original monopoly - the privatized chunks of that original monster are hardly free to develop and optimize even now.

Over here, state-supervised monopoly = technological stagnation.

Ever wonder why our telecom companies were so slow to adopt GSM?

Because of the old laws that still constrained what's left of the original monopoly - the privatized chunks of that original monster are hardly free to develop and optimize even now.

Your first observation is curious - AT&T laboratories are credited with numerous inventions, including comissioning the first ever communication Satellite.

And since AT&T was privatized in 1985 (or something like that, can't remember well), well, you should look into another explanation to why your companies have not adopted GSM; My country's "AT&T" (Portugal Telecom) was only privatized in the 90's, and they have quickly introduced third generation cell phones anyway.

Your first observation is curious - AT&T laboratories are credited with numerous inventions, including comissioning the first ever communication Satellite.

And since AT&T was privatized in 1985 (or something like that, can't remember well), well, you should look into another explanation to why your companies have not adopted GSM; My country's "AT&T" (Portugal Telecom) was only privatized in the 90's, and they have quickly introduced third generation cell phones anyway.

Only privatized in a limited way. Our telecom laws STILL are in a condition where it takes extensive Federal government review to allow even the simplest network to be built here - if a telecom is doing it.

The anchor is still holding this ship in place - by no means are the "privatized" units of the original company free to do anything without intensive government review and approval.

One bid that sent shockwaves through the industry came from Google, which offered to blanket the city with free wireless high-speed internet access - funded by advertising.Nice.

Wi-fi coverage is great, but does it need to be seen as a utility? There are so many options to get on the internet that wi-fi as a utility isn't really needed. If it were to be installed in cities, I think it needs to be treated like cell phone coverage. That's not considered a utility, even though it may be deemed to be more critical than wi-fi.

A fundamental right to WiFi ... Only in California.
Yea...but it's Philadelphia the article cites.

The city that I live in is going to setup a Wi-Fi network. They are one of the first to run a city cable tv/internet company. They made that work well so dont see how they could mess up the Wi-Fi bit. They are going to do this however on the backs of the taxpayers. Seeing how I do pay already for my crapcast internet I wouldnt mind paying an extra bit in property taxes to fund the system. Hopefully it will work out well.

Many rural communities/small towns are not provided with quality internet service unless the local government is directly involved int its development and management. Where I live the city owned telecommunications company provides high speed internet and is branching out into digital television (making a large profit which supports the water/electric utilities and provides high quality jobs).

If government can do a far superior job then private enterprise, it should not be hindered.

I don't think that the government of Philadelphia should just give complete control of a new WiFi network to one corporation. It's setting itself up to become a corrupt bureaucracy and mess up competition. Instead, I think that there should be bidding for grants and the city/area/whatever should be divided up depending on who does what. The better a company does with less, the more likely they'll get another grant. That way, everything can be ultra-efficient without hurting private enterprise.

Also, concerning Wi-Fi being a 'right', it's quite honestly ridiculous. As a person who follows the ideas of John Locke, who lists life, liberty and property as the principle rights, I do not feel that WiFi falls into any of these categories. One does not need to have food, water, and WiFi to survive. Liberty does not include WiFi, since you can still do plenty of things without WiFi and you can get it later if you can. Property? I think that it would be a stretch to say that being provided WiFi is a property right. If you work hard to get WiFi, then you should be able to buy it, but otherwise if you're not doing enough to get it, then it's not the government's problem.

Also, concerning Wi-Fi being a 'right', it's quite honestly ridiculous. As a person who follows the ideas of John Locke, who lists life, liberty and property as the principle rights, I do not feel that WiFi falls into any of these categories. One does not need to have food, water, and WiFi to survive. Liberty does not include WiFi, since you can still do plenty of things without WiFi and you can get it later if you can. Property? I think that it would be a stretch to say that being provided WiFi is a property right. If you work hard to get WiFi, then you should be able to buy it, but otherwise if you're not doing enough to get it, then it's not the government's problem.

Society is advanceing so that access to quality wireless communication is now vital to success. What is considered a right comes partially from humanities wants and needs. In third world countries living standirds are measured by access to phones, televisions, computors and the internet (in addition to clean water and electricity). Internet access has become a measurement of life quality, thus people will consider it a "right".