Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Municipal level Wi-Fi is a critical step forward culturally and technologically. In the near term, free ubiquitous internet access will be a critical component of modern society. Today, every aspect of society has been altered by the internet; communications, commerce, entertainment, community--all dramatically different then even a decade ago.
Back in the early 1990's, the internet was already several decades old, but not internet we think of today nor that created the dotcom explosion. Beginning in 1994, a confluence of technology emerged over 18 months that dramatically altered how we think of the internet. Several important developments occurred between the beginning of 1994 and the end of 1995: 1. the development of Netscape (1994) and Internet Exporer (1995)-- modern style webbrowers 2. flat fee access propelled primary by America Online (1995) 3. modern search engines-- Yahoo (1995) 4. the development of most modern internet concepts like webmail (Hotmail 1995), instant messaging (IRC 1995) and online commerce (Amazon 1994). In the decade that followed, the United States entered a period of unparalleled prosperity fueled in large part by the internet revolution. But had you asked the average person in 1993 whether they needed an internet capable computer, most would probably have looked at you as though you had three heads. By the end of the decade, "the internet" had become a modern staple, and today its ubiquitous. Wireless internet connectivity will have the same result in the near future as tethered internet did in 1994/1995. Already there are products that integrate Wi-Fi capabilities. Every modern laptop is today equipped for Wi-Fi access. Smartphone devices like the iPhone are equipped with Wi-Fi, as are devices like the iPod Touch. IPods and iPhones are for entertainment, though you say. Except, of course, when you use them in conjunction with the internet. Looking for a restaurant-- just search the internet. Need to find the phone number of a local business-- just search the internet. Movie times, weather forecast-- internet, at your finger tips, anywhere. And these are just the sort of devices that have developed without widespread, free internet access. The iPod Touch and the iPhone are just the beginning of a new generation of devices. They are much like Prodigy was in the late 1980's, a stepping stone to the future. A hundred and fifty years ago, all but the most advanced cities were dark by nightfall. Nighttime was a frightening place. The introduction of gas lamps, and later electric street lights changed our society forever. Now any parking lot in America provides free light to anyone passing by. What has happened as a result? Instead of bedding down at dusk, bars, restaurants, clubs, concert venues, movie theaters-- nightlife -- has become a staple. Free Wi-Fi will be the same way. Once free internet can reliably be accessed from many locations, industry will find new uses we've never even thought of because we don't have a service like that now.
Posted on: 2007/9/24 22:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't use the library or school system and I would prefer not to pay for them 
Posted on: 2007/9/24 19:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/11/18 10:02 Last Login : 2014/8/4 14:09 From Journal Square, duh!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
144
 |
First, I want to remind you that there is less safety in WiFi than in any other networking protocol. You can spy on an Ethernet network (unless you have really smart routers), you can spy on the TV cable network (it's easy to tweak the modem to do that), but there is really no protection in WiFi. And even if you have it set on some sort of encryption, sharing the password with the entire city would make that password useless.
Second, I don't know where you get these numbers with 2 dollars a month Internet connections. Verizon dry loop is 50 dollars a month, Comcast no-TV connection is 52. I had them both in the last months. They are probably worthy, especially for people like me who need a computer and an Internet connection to work more efficiently. I would surely appreciate more a free phone service, because it should be easier to provide. At this time, the landline is almost as expensive as these broadband connections, and I don't believe that the costs are even on the same order of magnitude. Third, maybe you are thinking that whatever happens now in the 2-3 expensive cafes in downtown is what will happen in the rest of the City. You need to visit a real Internet cafe to figure out how the cheap Internet is used. Except for a few people calling home to some other continent via IM, most people are there for looking for classifieds for women. I don't see why this has to be sponsored in any way by anybody. My opinion: I would not use it and I would prefer not to pay for it.
Posted on: 2007/9/24 18:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Ambitious plans for big Wi-Fi networks...are being abandoned or scaled back
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
From: http://www.physorg.com/news109734117.html
Ambitious plans for big Wi-Fi networks to provide free or low-cost wireless Internet access are being abandoned or scaled back by US cities as the economics of the deals turn out to be more challenging than expected. San Francisco and Chicago in recent weeks abruptly halted plans to set up municipal Wi-Fi networks while Internet giant Earthlink, a partner for a number of cities, has begun a reorganization that will limit new projects. Wi-Fi, one of the most popular standards for wireless Internet access, had been seen as a means of connecting more people at a relatively low cost, and city leaders across the United States had been rushing to use the technology for "digital inclusion" programs for low-income residents. But cities and companies are finding the economics more difficult, with many expensive access points needed and relatively small numbers of subscribers signing on. "I think it's a troubled market," said Daryl Schoolar, senior analyst at the research firm In-Stat. "Some thought a lot of people would rush out with laptops and would use it. But Wi-Fi doesn't really penetrate buildings well. And people use Wi-fi mainly in hotels, airports and cafes." Although some privately operated Wi-Fi deployments in these high-density locations have become popular, analysts say the notion of a large municipal network blanketing cities is questionable. MuniWireless, a website tracking municipal projects, counts over 400 cities in planning or development of Wi-Fi networks. But analysts say only a small percentage of these are operating, and many are primarily for police or public-safety access. "The problem is finding a business model that really works," said Stan Schatt, analyst with ABI Research. "Originally the municipalities came into this by saying they would offer Wi-Fi and get a free ride for their internal networks, and it turns out it doesn't work that way." In San Francisco, Google was preparing to back a citywide Wi-Fi program with Earthlink that would be free for users who agree to view online ads, with paying customers getting an ad-free version. But the city was unable to come to terms with Earthlink before the firm pulled out and announced a massive reorganization on August 28. Chicago officials announced August 31 they would "re-evaluate" their plan after two potential partners failed to come up with a suitable plan because a network required "extraordinary financial support" from the city. "In Chicago and in many other cities, a municipal Wi-Fi network was initially envisioned as a way to provide cheaper, high-speed access to consumers," said Hardik Bhatt, the city's chief information officer. "But given the rapid pace of changing technology, in just two short years, the marketplace has altered significantly." Ahead of the other major cities, Philadelphia meanwhile is rolling out its Wi-Fi network, having covered more than half of the city's 350 square kilometers (135 square miles). The nonprofit Wireless Philadelphia organization has provided some 300 low-income residents with laptops and wireless "bundles" at a price of around 10 dollars per month. Free access is provided in many parks, and customers can sign up for citywide access for about 20 dollars monthly. "Philadelphia remains the showcase city for municipal wireless networks," said Wireless Philadelphia chief executive Greg Goldman, who indicated partner Earthlink's reorganization would not affect the project. Earthlink said it would keep its commitment to that city but would not take on any new projects using the "old business model." "We will not devote any new capital to the old municipal Wi-Fi model that has us taking all the risk by fronting all the capital, then paying to buy our customers one by one," Rolla Huff, EarthLink president and chief executive, told a conference call with analysts. "That model is simply unworkable." "EarthLink's reorganization may be the reality check that the municipal broadband market needs," says analyst Joe Panettieri, writing on MuniWireless. "Too many municipalities continue to focus on large, ambitious public wireless projects that have no clear path to profitability." Yet analysts say that despite the problems of municipal Wi-Fi programs, wireless Internet access is growing and more networks will be coming in some form. Other technologies are promising including WIMAX, which has a longer range for each access point. Spint Nextel and Clearwire are planning big WIMAX rollouts in the United States and other countries, analysts say. "There are many versions of this wireless technology, some will work and some won't, and we're in the early innings," said Jeff Kagan, an independent telecom industry analyst. But Kagan said the idea of cities providing Internet access appears doubtful. "This is a technology that is changing so quickly that you have to allow the industry to handle it on a competitive basis to keep the prices low and innovation high," Kagan said. "When government gets involved in these projects, no matter what government, it just trips over itself." ? 2007 AFP
Posted on: 2007/9/24 15:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Ai, ai, ai, I once had an argument with a friend about why the government involuntarily takes money from all of us to fund Government schools. "Children need schooling" was the other person's argument. One approach would be to go into the not so subtle nuances of whether the stolen money must only fund shitty government schools and not put them into competition with private schools via vouchers. I still see no reasonable argument against this yet...
My more direct argument was that children need shoes even more than schooling - does that mean that the government should take money from all of us and have a monopoly on shoe production? Are there a lot of poor kids without shoes as a consequence or this not being the status quo? Given the failure of the government to take care of education and the horrible idea of them having a monopoly on shoes - I really do wonder why anyone thinks that they should get into one of the most dynamic and fast moving business - wireless technology. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/22 4:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
I'm sure many people can't wait for free wifi. Imagine the temptation to download movies, music, child porn, snuff movies without worrying about the cops coming over! I bet terrorists would also find some use for it as well to attack manhattan!
Posted on: 2007/1/22 0:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Free wireless access in JC, hahahahahahahah. Not that it will ever happen but even if it did, we can look forward to even more people being mugged, run over or getting into car accidents because they are walking around or driving while listening to the ipod AND talking on the cell with one hand while typing on a handheld with the other. I doubt any wireless system will reach inside houses very well so this will be a free service for people who can afford a Blackberry or Palm or anyone dumb enough to go sit on a park bench with a $1500 laptop. And another thing, as far as this being an essential tool for children's education Bwahahahahahahahah. Dude, don't you know what kids use the internet for? No, not to research for their school essay. It's for My Space, AOL or Yahoo instant messageing, YouTube, porn, gaming, illegal music downloads and god only knows what else. And adults (I use the term loosely) are pretty much on the same level. Ya know, like squandering endless hours on sites like, well, sites like this one right here.
Posted on: 2007/1/21 17:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
Joined:
2005/8/16 2:53 Last Login : 2007/1/29 17:28 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
60
|
In JC? I don't know of municipal free hotspots. the Jersey City Public Libraries do offer free internet access.
In Philly users are charged based on need, so it can cost from $9.99 a month - digital inclusive rate for low income people - to the market rate of $21/month. I doubt that we can count on corporations or advertising to pay for free wi-fi. Google offers free wireless in a few test markets, but I don't think that is going anywhere. Free municipal wi-fi hotspots in select areas -- as opposed to blanketing the entire city, is more realistic for the short term. See: http://www.wirelessphiladelphia.org/index.cfm Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/21 17:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This should be supported by some of the big corporations that are now located in Jersey City. It will only be good if it costs the city nothing and is free or costs very little to end users -- but if that can be accomplished this could be really great for poor children here in Jersey City!
-------------------------------------------- There are also some great things happening worldwide in this regard: $100 Laptop -- OneLaptopPerChild (OLPC): http://www.olpcnews.com/ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Home ---------------------------------------------- and there is now free Linux software given away to anyone from South African philanthropist -- Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution)
Posted on: 2007/1/21 16:45
Edited by GrovePath on 2007/1/21 17:17:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/12 7:13 Last Login : 2012/5/16 16:22 From beneath the jumping sheep
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
442
|
S_F, isn't the city wi-fi- only free at certain hotspots?
Either way, I can't wait for this to be implemented.
Posted on: 2007/1/21 16:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2005/8/16 2:53 Last Login : 2007/1/29 17:28 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
60
|
Like it or not free wi-fi is going forward in NJ. There will be Fios, cable, dsl, and much slower wi-fi for minimal or no cost.
Posted on: 2007/1/21 16:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Former chief Bobby Troy will run it out of his basement.
Wifi will be free service,Troys administration cost will be 2 million a year.
Posted on: 2007/1/21 15:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
would you trust your internet connection to city hall? they can't even trim a tree, pick up trash or fill a pothole.
this will be another mismanaged project.
Posted on: 2007/1/21 15:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2005/8/16 2:53 Last Login : 2007/1/29 17:28 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
60
|
From the Sunday StarLedger
Allowing countiesto provide Wi-Fi A bill to authorize counties to operate publicly accessible wireless Internet networks was approved 5-1 yesterday by the Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee. Sponsored by Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden), the bill would authorize counties to construct, own and operate the broadband telecommunications infrastructure necessary for providing free or reduced-rate pub lic access to wireless Internet net works. It would allow the networks to be financed through the issuance of local bonds to be repaid through revenues derived from providing Wi-Fi service. "There is no reason wireless networks should only be limited to certain homes and businesses," Roberts said. "If individual communities and counties wish to extend such access to their residents, they should have all means possible to do so." Last month, Camden and Gloucester counties began exploring the possibility of establishing a Wi-Fi network that could make every home, business and public space in both counties Internet accessible. The city of Elizabeth has partnered with Kean University, Union County and two private providers to initiate a pilot program to provide free Wi-Fi service at certain high-traffic "access points" in the city. On page 29 of the 1.21.07 Sunday Star-Ledger is the article: ELIZABETH ENTERS THE WI_FI WORLD. It is not available on-line, but here is an excerpt "..tomorrow , [Elizabeth] will launch the state's first municipal wireless network, a free service offering anyone between Trinitas Hospital and the Broad Street station high-speed Internet access at the click of a button."
Posted on: 2007/1/21 15:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I don't know how many more ways to phrase this: You are deliberately connecting to something that is not yours without permission to do so. Permission is not implied just because it's open - to say that would mean you could get up and walk into your neighbors house if their door was unlocked (though, around here, I'd tend not to do that...) If your neighbors cable splitter had an open port outside and you hooked into it, are you just "sharing" your neigbhors cable? I mean, hell, they left the port open, either deliberately or accidentally, right? If everyone "shared" open connections, how in the hell would there be any paid connections left in the end? It just doesn't scale. I provided links above where these cases have gone far beyond the first motion to dismiss. Before spouting stuff like that off, how about checking out the details. Even people who make it their hobby to find and map out open wireless networks consider it unethical to actually connect to them. In the case of open WiFi.. You're not only potentially stealing service from your neighbor, you're potentially stealing service from their ISP. As an example, Comcast expressly forbids this arrangement in their terms of service. Just because it *may* be free doesn't give you the right to just take it. This applies in real life and it applies for wireless signals. On another topic, for those clammoring for this but also FIOS, go ahead and put in citywide free WiFi. See if Verizon comes calling anytime in the next 10 years to put FIOS in. This will stop FIOS dead in it's tracks for JC. Go and search on the other articles regarding cities putting in muni broadband and see how the incumbent telcos have dealt with it. Lafayette, LA and BellSouth are great examples. Why free WiFi? Why aren't we giving away the laptops for free, too? Why not free phone service and cable TV while we're at it? Both of those resources if used properly can be great tools for underprivledged people. A free massage weekly would do them well in all that job-finding stress. Ask some of the people in highrise buildings in Philadelphia how their free WiFi is doing. It's non existant as signals dont' travel well through concrete and steel. The idea that the areas around JC, such as the projects, would be served well is a joke. The projects in JC, for example, would have to be custom fitted for wireless inside the building. This is not as simple as just throwing some equipment at the top of a few light posts and will become a long term maintenance nightmare. And Steve, I'm glad that your other initiatives are going well - but that doesn't give you an excuse to take your eyes off the ball and remember what's still important. Last I checked, I had 3 wheels stolen off a car near VVP on Saturday night and it was left on milk crates. No one "noticed" it happening even though it was directly under a street lamp and on a major road. That same night, two other vehicles had their windows smashed out (that I saw). When the officer showed up on Sunday to take the report for my vehicle(30 minutes later), his radio and the radio of the other officer that showed up didn't work and he had to call dispatch from his cell phone. If you ask me, that's a bigger "wireless" problem.
Posted on: 2006/5/24 11:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
There's a lot of bogeyman and straw man argumentation going on here, especially with regards to legal consequences of using an open WiFi. It's not surprising that it comes flavored with the "let them eat cake" attitude that underclass is not able to appreciate it.
To claim that using an open connection would subject the user to criminal charges probably wouldn't get past the first motion to dismiss. The simple fact is, many are deliberately left open by generous citizens or by neighborhood organizations who see the public good in that sharing. Rarely - very rarely - is there any welcoming screen to identify the deliberately open from the accidental. In that common circumstance, proving intent to steal service would be difficult for the simple reason that the intention may not exist - and the presumption of the law - at least for as long as we have our fragile and endangered Constitution - is that one is innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, your friend and mine, the phone or cable company, that outstanding public citizen who has no problem exploiting public property as a monopoly, has tried and failed to stop community-wide projects. But I'm not aware of any attempt by them to criminalize, or even civilly prosecute, someone with a laptop sitting on a bench or in a car outside an apartment house. As for that "child pornography" bogeyman, distributing it by any means is illegal all by itself. To say that open WiFi should be repressed because it may be used to distribute illegal material is the same as saying that owning a printing press or fax machine or scanner or computer or pencil should be regsitered, licensed and controlled because of the potential for abuse. That's the pretense used right now in China to control the Internet. It's the pretense of every despot in history to suppress liberty. As for the "go buy your own" elitist arrogance, we subsidize public transportation, not to serve some lazy underclass that refuses to buy its own train or bus, but because it serves many economic and social needs that are essential to a wealthy and stable society. Paving streets and building highways is not to make life easier for those too stupid to build their own but for the common good. Public education is not a bone to rioting masses but the engine of national political and economic power. Open access to the Internet is just one more basic social service. I have lived in a certain country where 5% of the population own more than 95% of the real estate but paid no income or property tax. As a result, there were few, if any, public services. Police were paid $40 a month - and all they could extort from their fellow poor. Trained firemen were virtually non-existent and the small amount of fire equipment that existed bore the names of cities in other countries that donated their used equipment. Public libraries did not exist. Hospitals were where one went to die, while the rich got on a plane to the USA. Public schools, when they existed at all, were pathetic. And that country, while sitting atop huge natural resources such as gold, gems and astoundingly fertile land, is "third world" due entirely to the selfishness and arrogance of its wealthy. The arguments used there to maintain the privileges of the wealthy were the same ones used here against cheaper or even free public access to open wireless Internet. Marie Antoinette would agree.
Posted on: 2006/5/24 10:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
sounds like a good argument for people to pay a little extra for high speed internet.
also, must agree that there should be some competition for broadband, cable and phone service in JC. Does anyone know why there isn't?
Posted on: 2006/5/23 15:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
I've found Pew Internet reports helpful in filling out some aspects of this topic. They've identified clear differences in user behavior dependent upon access speed. As the expectation increases that the general population has reliable and fast internet access - banking, schoolwork, business, news promulgation - folks without high speed access are at a clear disadvantage.
Posted on: 2006/5/23 3:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
seriously, its like saying a library are going to put book stores out of business.
city wifi will never be the same as your private internet you paid for, but its better than nothing, and it lets people access information they normally might not have been able to at reasonable speeds. yes it won't be secure, but there should be warnings stating that when you first log on. and as long as a business or bank uses encryption, those transactions will be secure.
Posted on: 2006/5/23 2:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Because dialup sucks so badly with all the poorly designed bandwidth hog websites out there it makes using the net torture. If we want to help the poor & ignorant become less so, internet access is the 21st century equivalent of the public library, town square and the newpaper rolled into one. But then,helping the poor & ignorant become less so is not such a clear goal in some circles. Quote:
While I'm sympathetic to your libertarian argument, it would hold more water if Verizon & Comcast actually competed against each other in the marketplace rather than in the bidding war for politicians who will grant them secure monopolies. Both of them have nothing but contempt for their customers, and deserve the same from us. Probably the only reason the government needs to be involved in the wireless venture is to protect it from those anticompetitive monsters who are like black walnut trees that poison anything that tries to grow near them. These are the guys who are currently whining to Congress that being paid by their customers for broadband isn't enough, they need to get paid for bandwidth by websites that are already paying for their own broadband bandwidth!
Posted on: 2006/5/23 1:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
There may be the additional problem of spoofing.
(?-p? spoof?ing) (n.) A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that the packets are coming from that host. Newer routers and firewall arrangements can offer protection against IP spoofing. When using wireless connections, it's very easy to be deceived into thinking you are hooking onto a random neighbors wireless signal or free wireless at a coffee shop when, in fact, it is a spoofer. And once you hook into a spoofed host, they can steal just about anything off your computer. While this wouldn't be the city's fault, it may be the unlucky result for naive users trying to log-on. Also of note, many airports and other stores provide an encrypted number for a fee in order to log into localized wireless services. If you wanted to offer citywide wireless, why not charge a small fee to cover costs. Otherwise, we are conning people into thinking they have another entitlement. And we all know how hard entitlements are to get rid of. For the record, I don't think any tax money should go towards this, particularly with the dire situation in JC. Get new union employees on 401ks, streamline operations, and trim the budgets first. Pave streets, protect the populace and run city bureaucracries efficiently second. Then go for the gimmicks.
Posted on: 2006/5/22 20:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
2 questions:
First, why do the "disadvantaged" need broadband? What can they do with broadband that they cannot do with dialup? Is mp3 watching, porno downloads, bit torrent burns, and online gaming "necessary services" that government (ie, homeowners paying property taxes) are obligated to provide? Why, exactly? Also, let's be honest- It won't be senior citizens and low income people hooking up to the network. Going forward, you're going to see the taking of a nascent technology (15 years the internet has been a household word- we're just getting started) from a center of innovation to becoming a "government service" that will run as efficiently and improve as quickly as other "government services". And why? Because populist politicians are always looking for something else to "give" away.....from someone else's pocket. I hate Comcast with a white hot burning passion from a service standpoint. The connection, however, rocks, and I'm willing to pay for it (comes down to $2 a day if you don't have digital, less if you do- Hardly a prohibitive cost). I make a prediction today- If you get "free" government internet, in 10 years it will cost on average way more than $2 a day for each account. Forcing a company to compete with a "free" government service, with power limited only by their ability to tax, with no incentive AT ALL to service, is a scenario for the destruction of the networks that do exist. Mark my words- Do this, and 20 years from now you'll see a stagnant network that has improved not at all. But wait! We'll sell advertising! We'll get Google to donate! It will be FREE! Ah yes, initially it will. Someday, however, Google or whoever will be finished with this sinkhole, and you'll find "emergency spending bills" being authorized to cover the costs. Then you'll get 20-30 no-show no work "network maintainence" jobs out of city hall. I could go on but I'm tired, and I don't need to. Look around you at everything that your municipality either controls or provides. It is uniformly sad, dilapidated, slow, pitiful, and embarassing. They can't maintain a street. You want them to maintain a wireless network? And all these people I hear worried that government is eavesdropping, controlling, censoring, etc...You all want a government controlling how and where and when you access the internet? What's to stop a municipality from running blocking software to screen out "objectional" websites? You get one bible-thumper in office and it will be "adios porno!", complete with well oiled speeches denouncing use of taxpayer money for porno bandwidth. And once that happens, once censorship is accepted a little bit, it's all over. The next step will be dirty words, "offensive" non-politically correct commentary (defined by whoever is in office at the time), etc etc etc. What about when a political adversary's website "accidentally" gets blocked the week of the election? Governments... ALL governments, by virtue of what they are, seek to control, to the extent they're able, the flow of information. The Internet is proving to be a revolutionary tool for getting the truth out. Government would love to control the revolution, and to save $2 a day, $1 or less for narrowband, are there really people out there that are willing to let them do it? Freedom is sold that cheaply? Would you trust George W Bush with control over your internet connection? Would you believe him when he said he'd never allow anything to be censored today, tomorrow, 20 years from now? Also- The internet is not "free" from a traffic carrying standpoint. At some time the value proposition for the national network, if the locals become province of government, will change. Not enough time to talk about that here, but remember NOTHING is free, and you get what you pay for. Think long and hard. There are repercussions far beyond free access in Hamilton Park while walking the dog. GWB
Posted on: 2006/5/22 19:17
Edited by GeorgeWBush on 2006/5/22 19:36:22
Edited by GeorgeWBush on 2006/5/22 19:39:53 Edited by GeorgeWBush on 2006/5/22 19:41:16 |
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think it is great if you can get this done for free or on the cheap -- great stuff!
Posted on: 2006/5/22 15:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I Appreciate the feedback. A couple of points related to your posts. Apologies on the length
1) I will bring up the website at today?s caucus and that it?s in dire need of being overhauled. I will let you know where this goes 2) It was also pointed out that I get out-voted often on some important issues whether it is a hiring freeze, removing Chief Troy or abatements? This is a fact, but it doesn?t mean that what I am saying is not the truth. The reality is that sometimes the actual vote result is not the most important aspect but turning the spotlight on something that is very wrong often has the same effect. We won the seat despite the political organization and that affords some freedom as to what I can do. The police Chief issue had some serious impact for him to reform, or the detective promotions that were on deck will likely not happen?. 3) With regards to prioritizing issues in the city, some of you have mentioned that you would prefer that I focus on other items that are more pressing. I recognize this point may seem valid, but I plead that you recognize that I put my time to working on several initiatives at the same time including entertainment ordinances, ethics policy, dog run, abatement overhaul, Newark Avenue/Christopher Columbus?. Of which many of you have been very involved. In the past year, you may not realize but we got much accomplished, even with issues like street paving that was cited here, relative to the rest of the city we managed in Ward E to get the most streets paved versus any other ward. Things are far from perfect and I will be the first to say, but I am happy with many aspects of the last year 4) On the wireless internet, maybe it is just I feel with a little work it is doable. This past week I finished my Marine Corps commitment, and the dual Master Programs at both Columbia and NYU so I will be the first to say that I have added capacity and will do much of the lifting on this as long as volunteers are with me. There are many different models on how municipal wireless can work from revenue generating, to low cost to the private entity, to free fro advertising. The reality is that this is a new space and there is uncertainty on both the public/private side which poses an opportunity if we are smart about it. I think it is important that we are on the earlier side with this project and I am sure that if some of you are willing to help out we can put together something that we can all be proud of. Once again, as always I appreciate the feedback and as I say at the community meetings, I am always thankful for the opportunity to represent you on the council Sincerely Steven Fulop
Posted on: 2006/5/22 15:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Not much to add to this topic, except to say that I fully support the efforts. A fully wired city is a great amenity that adds to the quality of life and attracts new residents who are creative and entrepeneurial.
Posted on: 2006/5/22 14:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
You pointed to an article that discusses sharing of connections where the owner of the connection has decided they want to share it. I'd say about 90% of open access points are open because of being naive.. Newer AP's ship secured out of the box, but there's still a lot of legacy crap around and there are people who turn it off because it's a hassle. And sorry, I misspoke. In some states, it's known as "unauthorized access to a computer network" I don't know how much more cut and dry it could actually be. If you had a cordless phone that happened to be on the same frequency as your neighbors and you picked up the phone and made calls from their line, would that be legal? No. I don't know NJ's specific law and I really don't feel like digging it out, but if someone wanted to have you prosecuted for being on their wireless network, I'm sure they could find a law to apply to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardriving for some n00b detail (focuses more on listening to find networks, not necessarily using them).
Posted on: 2006/5/21 2:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Moderator
 
Joined:
2004/1/6 7:40 Last Login : 2021/9/18 2:12 From Beautiful Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
204
|
glx, if it is 100% illegal to use unsecured wireless connections then show me the law that says so and tell the FBI that I want to turn myself in.
Posted on: 2006/5/21 1:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
No, it's not perfectly legal. It's completely 100% illegal and is considered Theft of Services. It's a felony and not only would the JCPD like to have a word with you (if they actually cared) but the FBI would, too. You're committing a crime against both the service provider and the customer. Quote:
802.11 (standard WiFi) can be made to reach a 1-square-mile radius with off-the-shelf antennas and the correct type of access points. Putting in WiMax (which at this point would be Pre-N) gear when the idea is to serve the poor and underserved would be foolish - WiFi gear is cheap and accessible - you can get cards for even the oldest PC's for under $20. Anyways, as a technologist I think this is a bad move for the city. With all of the other problems going on, this should be the least of our concerns. Let's wait until we get a deal like SF where Google or some other large company will put it in, for free, and support it simply from ad revenue that they already get. In the meantime, let the free market serve the citizens. Most people in JC can get the stripped down Verizon DSL for $17.95/month. Those who can't have Comcast and other smaller wireless solution providers. Eventually FIOS will make it's way to JC (not holding my breath, but it'll come..) which will make very fast connections very cheap, negating the need for free WiFi for the most part. Supporting a large meshed network like this will become a large hassle and headache. Coverage will dip in and out (good luck getting signal into the concrete and stone buildings). People think of the "soft" issues like helping people configure their PC's, etc... The hard issues will come around when people use the connection for illegal purposes and then the City law department has to hire 10 lawyers to get involved every time they have to respond to subpoenas because someone is downloading Metallica in VVP and someone's downloading illegal porn at the Taqueria.
Posted on: 2006/5/20 12:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1152930,00.asp
Posted on: 2006/5/20 12:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wireless Internet - Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Maybe, maybe not http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/techn ... internet_piracy/index.htm What if the person piggybacking on your access point is trafficking in child pornography? Quote:
"mesh" networks are surprisingly cheap ($100,000/sq mi) http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/municipal-wifi.htm
Posted on: 2006/5/20 3:43
|
|||
|
||||