10/4    WiFi a basic human right in SF:
        http://tinyurl.com/cfc34 (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ Can you tell me why the city shouldn't offer WiFi to residents?
           \_ This is not an area where government should be involved. Are
              they going to offer cell phone service and cable tv, too?
              Who is going to pay for this?
              \_ Commercial ventures who will profit through advertising.
                 \_ The question is, why should government be involved in this?
                    \_ Why do we have public schools and libraries?  (I'm
                       almost certain your response will be "Yes, why do we?")
                       \_ Education is a basic right that everyone should
                          have. Wireless Internet access across an entire
                          city is not. I would support free WiFi in, say,
                          libraries.
                          \_ Your line is arbitrary.  As is Newsom's.  It's
                             a proposal.  How would you feel if he kept his
                             goal of "no taxpayer money used"?  Also, as a
                             commercial venture, there is no guarantee of its
                             status as a publicly available product.  If you
                             agree with Newsom that internet access should be
                             available to everyone for free, then a public
                             works project is the only way to go.
                             \_ It is not arbitrary. Libraries currently
                                provide Internet connections already. We
                                can debate whether this should be revoked
                                or not, but it is already a reality. There
                                is a difference between that and offering
                                free wireless to everyone in a city for
                                whatever purpose.
                                \_ I find your racist insinuations offensive.
                                \_ And that difference is...?  It would suck
                                   less?  You argue that the government has
                                   no place offering this service.  Then you
                                   say "oh, even though they do offer this
                                   service, offering it to more people in more
                                   locations at the same expenditure level is
                                   ... different."  Do you have a point?
                                   \_ Have you ever heard of a compromise?
                                      If I *had* to choose one or the
                                      other I would eliminate all free
                                      Internet access. However, I can see
                                      the value in being able to use it
                                      at a library. There is quite a
                                      difference in cost and scale between
                                      offering a kiosk somewhere and
                                      offering unlimited access to
                                      everyone for free. It won't be the
                                      same expenditure level or else
                                      industry would have already provided
                                      it. Look at it this way: providing
                                      free electricity for street lights
                                      is probably a good thing for
                                      government to do. It keeps citizens
                                      safe. Providing free electricity to
                                      everyone is not.
                                      \_ So you reject Newsom's framing of
                                         it as a right.  Do you live in the
                                         city?
                                         \_ I don't and I would oppose it
                                            if my city proposed it.
                                            \_ Fine.  Then shut up about SF.
                                               \_ Why? I can't have an
                                                  opinion? Other cities
                                                  are going to want to
                                                  mimic this.
                             goal of "no taxpayer money used"?
                                   less?
                 \_ Given the level of suckitude from wireless phone providers
                    of late, who seem more interested in offering gadgets and
                    adding customers than providing me with a decent signal
                    or an outgoing connection, I think I'm willing to give
                    socialism a shot on this one.
                  \_ If this is the case, then why does the government need
                     to be involved at all? Shouldn't the commercial ventures
                     setup everything?
        \_ A bit misleading, that headline.  The quote, from the article:
              "This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom
              told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It
              is to me a fundamental right to have access universally
              to information," he said.
           -geordan
           \_ In the context of discussing wifi citywide to say something like
              that it is hard to see him meaning anything other than what the
              OP headline reads.
              \_ That's why he's a politician.  He can make his words mean one
                 thing now, and make the same words mean a different thing when
                 people dig it up years later.
        \_ By basic right, did he mean "No one should be disallowed to have
           Wi-Fi access" or "The governments in the world should provide Wi-Fi
           access to everyone in the world who cannot afford it"?
        \_ "My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing,"
           then who's paying for it?
        \_ Why is Wifi a more basic human right than say, phone service?
           \_ It's not so much that it's a basic human right, it's that it
              can be provided pretty inexpensively to everyone.  It's also
              place-tied rather than person-tied, which makes a difference
              in terms of being able to provide the service universally.
              Don't look at it in terms of moral rights, look at it in terms
              of increasing quality of life for a good chunk of residents
              for not much money.  -tom
              \_ I actually have no problem with the city providing this
                 service, although we'll see if the end up biting off more
                 than they can chew.  I just think casting it as a "civil
                 rights issue" is a little over the top. -pp
                 \_ I agree, although there is some extent to which you could
                    argue social justice, since the poor are less likely to
                    be able to afford internet service, and thus are
                    disadvantaged in terms of access to governmental
                    resources as well as things like craigslist.  (Of course,
                    they'd still need a computer, and Newsome isn't trying
                    to address that issue).   -tom
                    \_ Just for the record, you can argue ANYTHING with
                       "social justice."  Social Justice != Civil Rights.
              \_ So you would cast it along the same lines as recreation
                 in the form of parks? Something not necessary but that
                 improves quality of life? I think the problem here is
                 that there is little incentive for industry to provide
                 parks, but there is a lot of incentive to provide
                 Internet access. Many hotels and other businesses are
                 offering it already. It seems government intervention
                 here is not really necessary and it *will* cost money
                 to administer, oversee, look over contracts and so on.
                 It will probably also cost industry money. I know I'd
                 cancel my DSL if I had it for free. What is the real
                 driver here if it's not a basic right - especially in
                 these uncertain economic times?
                 \_ The driver is that people want it, and it's cheaper and
                    more effective to do in bulk than individually.  That's
                    why Berkeley has AirBears, for example.  -tom
                        \- i think "enterprise wifi" may scale super-linearly
                           rather than sub-linearly because you cant just
                           use these super cheep WAPs. i think the enterprise
                           approach is more so you have a rational system
                           and enforse policy. rather than simple economies
                           of scale. does berkeley disallow people from doing
                           their own wireless? at lbl we do.
                           \_ The WAPs are more expensive, but you save more
                              in bandwidth; it's very inefficient to send
                              a full DSL line to every house in a neighberhood,
                              when the aggregate bandwidth required is, what,
                              the equivalent of two or three DSL lines?
                              Berkeley does not currently ban people from
                              using their own wireless, but it requires them
                              to be able to identify individuals using their
                              WAPs, and reserves the right to ban it later.
                              The campus doesn't have ubiquitous AirBears
                              yet, though there is some initiative in that
                              direction.  -tom
                    \_ People want a lot of things. That shouldn't matter
                       unless people want to pay for it. As for 'doing in
                       bulk' - cheaper for who and who loses out?
                       \_ The idea that government should only do things if
                          people want to pay for them is absurd.  I guess
                          we should just toss the whole road network.
                          It is cheaper to do, as in the total expense is
                          smaller, therefore no one has to lose out.  -tom
                          \_ People want roads and are willing to pay for
                             them in the form of taxes. If people want
                             WiFi then there needs to be a WiFi tax.
                             Selling it as 'free' is dangerous. Also, if WiFi
                             providers are put out of business by having
                             to compete with the US Government then someone
                             will lose out.
                             \_ The vast majority of road funding comes from
                                general funds, not from specific road taxes.
                                WiFi will probably not cost enough to warrant
                                its own tax.  -tom
                                \_ Re: roads, it doesn't matter which funds
                                   they come out of. They are coming out
                                   of taxes and people are fine with this.
                                   Gas tax, income tax, or whatever. How
                                   much will WiFi cost? Whatever it costs,
                                   something else will have to be cut or taxes
                                   will have to be raised. Won't there have
                                   to be a massive pipe for all the users?
                                   Also, what about the business this
                                   hurts?
                                   \_ I am not at all fine with the idea of
                                      taxes coming out of the general fund
                                      to pay for roads, but I don't get any
                                      choice in the matter.  Government is
                                      not a business and it's ridiculous to
                                      suggest that it should operate like
                                      one.  Also, government exists to serve
                                      the people, not the businesses.  -tom
                                      \_ Whoa there cowboy!  Are you trying to
                                         say that since roads aren't directly
                                         self funding via gas taxes/tolls/etc
                                         that we should only them to the
                                         extent that they can self fund? And
                                         would you apply that same concept to
                                         other things such as education?
                                         \_ No, I'm saying the exact opposite.
                                            Government doesn't exist to
                                            connect "buyers" (taxpayers) with
                                            "sellers" (services) based on
                                            how willing the buyers are to pay
                                            taxes for a particular service.
                                            If that were the case, the
                                            government wouldn't need to be
                                            involved, because businesses would
                                            be doing it on their own.  The
                                            government exists to provide
                                            services to the public which
                                            would not be equitably,
                                            efficiently, or sufficiently
                                            provided by a business model.  It
                                            is not hard to argue that WiFi
                                            can be considered such a service.
                                              -tom
                                            \_ Why is this different than e.g.
                                               cell phone service?
                                               \_ There are cities which
                                                  provide cell phone service
                                                  as a public utility,
                                                  but it's not free because
                                                  it costs a lot more to
                                                  provide cell phone service
                                                  than WiFi.  Also, cell phone
                                                  service isn't tied to a
                                                  location; it wouldn't make
                                                  much sense to provide cell
                                                  phones which only work
                                                  within the city limits. -tom
                                      \_ Wow. This last statement is
                                         controversial since people
                                         benefit from business. I'll leave
                                         that one alone for now. You might
                                         oppose roads coming out of the
                                         general fund, but the reality
                                         is that there are transportation
                                         taxes to pay for roads outside of
                                         the general fund. Take them out
                                         of the general fund and there
                                         would still be roads and people
                                         would likely vote to fund more.
                                         Will people vote to fund WiFi?
                                         Possibly, but this is TBD. It
                                         will not be free, no matter what
                                         the politicans say. Some other
                                         service will have to be cut.
                                         Fundamentally, I think WiFi is a
                                         luxury and should be one of the
                                         first things cut.
                                         \- i sure hope they do better job
                                            of it than the SF pub lib WEEB
                                            site. that WEEB site is so bad
                                            there had to be some kind of
                                            bureacratic or corrupt explanation.
                                            \- i suppose framing this as a
                                               "right" does dillute the notion
                                               of "rights" but not as much
                                               as BUSHCO has done by say
                                               torturing people and not giving
                                               them their day in court. it
                                               will be interesting to see if
                                               somebody insists the govt filter
                                               homosexuals accessing ass porn
                                               via the publicly subsidized
                                               net access. it does seem like
                                               this could potentially be a
                                               very broad semi-anon way on to
                                               the internet, which has many
                                               implications.
                                               net access.