New Orleans Tech Chief Vows WiFi Net Here to Stay

breckinshire writes "After Hurricane Katrina last year, New Orleans set up a city-wide wireless network to encourage businesses to return and assist in recovery. The New Orleans technology chief recently said that he intends to make the network permanent, in spite of state law and the disapproval of telecoms."

WOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

A permanent WiFi network for a city that doesn't exist. Has this guy not noticed that over 50% of the population has not returned and doesn't plan on returning?

My Irony Asplode

[Tackhead]

> "We believe the Fair Competition Act was established to provide safeguards for private industry," Grabert said. "Efforts to repeal it do raise concerns."

Even as a free-market kind of guy, the doublespeak here really makes my head spin. In the name of fair competition... we have to eliminate anything that might outcompete with $5.99/minute pay-card-based WiFi providers.

Then again, welcome to Newspeak verb conjugation 101:

I am erotic. You are kinky. They are perverts.
We protect. Our allies enforce. Our enemies oppress.
Government appropriates. Telecoms lobby. WiFi users steal.

Old Lesson

[abb3w]

If you take out most of the urban infrastructure, it's an opportunity for competiting forms of infrastructure to move in, and potentially demonstrate superiority, just like any other hole in any other ecology.

Not that superior quality necessarily protects against superior lobbying...

Politics and business have never

[zappepcs]

Politics and business have never mixed any better than say... ummm gasoline and matches... no matter how they mix, somebody is getting burned, and its usually not the guy with the matches.

The trouble here is not that a city government can operate a WiFi or telecommunications network, but that if they did, it would remove the stranglehold that the telecoms companies have over the consumers. That is what is really at stake. Imagine what would happen if we all opened up our APs and started running large mesh networks over telecom company pipes? If you think NO is a problem, there would be calls for federally mandated closure of unsecured wireless APs.

Personally, I thought this is what the free market was supposed to be all about... competition to drive innovation and self-regulate cost structures. Of course there is always that unfair competitive practices thing, but how is making it illegal for anyone to compete 'fair competition' ????

I'm willing to bet that an 'open source' style mesh network can run for quite an extended period of time on simply the money that has been spent lobbying to keep NO from running a metro WiFi network. Perhaps its time to review, in public forums, the costs incurred by metropolitan NO on behalf of telecom companies so they can provide services? Licenses for towers and transmitters are not free, nor are they given away by divine right of the telecom companies. Tit for tat? Maybe its time?

Re:My Irony Asplode

[conJunk]

"We believe the Fair Competition Act was established to provide safeguards for private industry," Grabert said. "Efforts to repeal it do raise concerns."
Even as a free-market kind of guy, the doublespeak here really makes my head spin. In the name of fair competition... we have to eliminate anything that might outcompete with $5.99/minute pay-card-based WiFi providers.

nail.head, meet hammer.

that's pretty much it right there. Meffert seems to be operating on the following assumptions:

1- if private industry isn't priding this service, the government should
2- wifi is important for the rebuilding of the city's economy
3- as for how #2 above should be best implemented, see number one

at the end of the day, anyone who disagrees with this guy is trying to line their own pockets, and telling people who've been pretty roundly screwed over that they should just bend over and grin

this might be the first reasonable statement i've heard from a public official in years

Please stop this stupidity.

[radiotyler]

This makes me wonder how upset the Telcos & Cable providers were when Libraries (St. Louis, specifically) first brought high-speed Internet to everyone living in the city / county? To me at least, it really seems like the same thing: local government providing a service with tax money for everyone. I know why they're pissed about it: they think they're going to lose exactly one shitload of money because people can use the free Internet vs. cable / dsl at home and businesses. I for one don't really feel sorry for these companies missing out on getting some bucks from the locals. Offer a competitive service at a competitive price and people will go back to personal broadband solutions for their home.

The hardcore foil-hatters, gamers, file-sharing, and business communities will pay for their connection just because they don't want to touch the gov't tainted systems, want faster ping times, or a bigger pipe to push their data out. I mean, it's only 512 kbps and they're talking about dropping it to 128 kbps. I highly doubt (say, I'm 99% sure) using "free Wi-Fi" is a serious solution for most businesses and a lot of home users in the long run.

So in short, suck it up you penny-pinching bastards. There's no "free Wi-Fi" where I live, so you're still getting my check. Sheesh.

It seems to me

[bhalter80]

It seems to me that this is the free market at work and I'll explain why:

We have a service that is sought after by the residents and business people of NO , and we have a provider who is willing to distribute it at a given price. Now granted that price is free and it was at roughly 0 cost to them as the equipment was donated but none the less they are providing a service that the people are after at a price the people like.

Here comes Bell South, etc... who used to have a bunch of customers in NO before a natural disaster wiped them out. They obviously want that business back but replacing all the infrastructure they lost is extremely expensive so they have a dilema. Do we: 1)take a profit hit, piss off stock holders and possibly lose our jobs or 2)lobby against the people currently providing the service for free, colletc our monopoly and restore service when it becomes convenient and not too expensive.

Government should absolutely step in and provide this service IF the people want it, if a private company can provide a more compelling offer people are free to switch to it. In an ideal world once there is no more demand for gov't to provide the service the tax payers could defund it and the network would revert to its emergency only status.

Another analogy for this is roads, there weren't many paved roads before the gov't started building them should the contry have been forced to stand by and wait for private enterprise to build the roads? NO! Should private enterprise be forbidden from building toll roads? NO! if the privately owned roads are better (use any definition of better you like here) then they will get more use than the publicly owned ones. The same will happen with internet access in NO.

Re:Breaking the Law is No Good.

[santiago]

On the contrary, what is legal and what is moral are often in conflict. If enough people feel that a law is wrong, breaking it repeatedly is an excellent method of making everyone else realize that the law should be changed. Many of the great leaders and heroes of our history engaged in civil disobedience as a means to change society. The right to unionize, universal adult suffrage, an end to racial discrimination laws, the withdrawal of colonial governments from occupied nations--refusing to follow bad laws played a key role in all of these.

Re:Opportunity Knocking

[wiz31337]

Being a "mesh network" you hope the hurricane misses a couple of streetlights, and you still a partially working network.

Afterall, that's why DARPA came up with the idea for the Internet in the first place: If one communication link gets taken out, there are still other links to communicate with.

Re:Let's be honest...

[spxero]

Unfortunately for surrounding major cities, crime [washingtonpost.com] is [boston.com] up [city-journal.org].

I think that while it is a nice period for the working New Orleans, there is no guarantee once the city is back on track that it will stay free from freeloaders. Part of this is the bigger issue of people living on welfare that could work, but that's another discussion entirely. The wifi will be good to have for the working residents, but how long until the speeds drop, the networks deteriorate, and maintinence is not handled correctly?

Re:Breaking the Law is No Good.

[Surt]

Actually, non violent civil disobedience of bad laws is one of the most respected and useful ways to change bad laws.
If the police will refuse to enforce this by not arresting the mayor, that will be even better.

Re:Abuse

[Photon Ghoul]

There is not as much of a benefit to the community-at-large with a fee-based access system. Free city-wide wireless coverage means that anyone, with relatively little cost for an older computer or laptop can have access to the same information that the more privilaged have had access to for over a decade. In time, along with the proper resources to access, education on how to use the Internet and encouragement through public relations, provide a more educated and informed populace. That should be a benefit, correctd? That is, unless keeping the populace under-informed is what we want as a society.

Re:Breaking the Law is No Good.

[vertinox]

It is truly scary that government officials believe that they are above the law. Laws are passed for a reason - for good or for bad, and we have to accept the law as it is, or collectively agree to change the law.

Dear American Revolutionaries,

It dumbfounds me to no extent why you are not obeying our laws like civilized people. For good or for bad, you must accept the authority of the British Crown and English Parliament. Perhaps you can collectively agree to petition us and we might change the law... If we feel like it.

Yours Truly,

King George

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Land Value Tax

[Baldrson]

If they're serious about this they should offer up telephone polls and spectrum for 3 year leases to the highest bidder -- and stay the hell out of the way.

They'd get revenue rather than spending revenue and the town would be blanketed with wireless coverage before they could begin to issue their RFQ's to their bribers.

Re:Let's be honest...

[Khaed]

There are still going to be public schools, moron. But it's going to be a while before people who got free houses get new free houses on everyone else's dime. Especially since most of them don't want to work. Businesses in NO are begging for employees right now. Anyone of any color could get a great start if they wanted to actually fucking work.

There are just race baiting whiners like you and Cynthia "I get to punch cops 'cos I'm black" McKinney, and all the people who expect everything to be handed to them. Sorry if people aren't willing to just build a whole city for lazy people who want to stay in nice hotels (on the tax payers dollar) until everything is done for them.

Re:Breaking the Law is No Good.

[rewinn]

>If the police will refuse to enforce this by not arresting the mayor, that will be even better.

As Gandhi [mkgandhi.org] & MLK [nobelprize.org] demonstrated, it's even better if the police do enforce the law. Going to jail over a stupid, stupid law is a great way of saying "It's a stupid, stupid law" in a way that (a) attracts attention, (b) shows that you really mean it, and (c) gets the law repealed.

Not that I think the mayor's going to the pokey over wi-fi; I'm just saying that it's best if one wishes to break a law, that one includes the punishment in the total calculation.

Government monopoly vs. ?

[Burdell]

Why do people think that it is great to "compete" with a government-granted monopoly (telcos) with a government-built monopoly? How do you think the telcos got to the level they are at now? A private company (e.g. a real ISP) has enough problems trying to compete with the telcos. There's no way they can compete with taxpayer-funded networks as well.

Public Utility

[superkpt]

As long as getting access to the 'net is NOT considered a public right (such as electricity, water, sewage removal, etc.), the private telecoms will attempt to capitalize.

Societally, this poses an issue. To be a public utility, everyone must NEED the Internet. If this is so, then many of the 'brick-and-mortar' locations we go to must be replaced with more efficient 'online' locations. This is tricky. As yet, products and services offered online are offered offline. If a basic service (such as banking) moves in its entirety to the virtual world, then the Internet becomes not just a luxury, but a necessity.

This, of course, requires a societal shift. But we are moving this way. Think of communication tools. People 'can't live without' email. Heck, if I don't spend 6-8 hours a day online, I feel useless.

Until access to the Internet is considered a RIGHT, we'll never be able to freely give it away. I say we all put our brains together and create a product/service/idea that is truly revolutionary but can only be gained through the 'net. Moreover, this p/s/i must be so fundamentally essential to the world from that point on, access becomes essential for every man, woman, child, and anything else I missed.

Good luck to the project manager on that one :)