SFist: Today's Anti-Daly WiFi Protest

Jerry Jarvis

Wed, 16 May 2007 22:02:58 -0800

Also earthlink/google has scaled back the coverage area in the first 2 years it will not cover the whole city.I am not against the city getting it's free wifi but it could be a better deal than the one presented.Remember the Marshall's TJmax thing that just happen,well with the proposed free wifi deal now it will happen again.Kimmo said it the best.And this deal comes on the heals with the Mayor hanging out with the google people instead of D.C.The same people who hosted John Republican McCain.

Ziggy Tomcich

Wed, 16 May 2007 21:22:32 -0800

Cell phone providers are more guilty of creating frankenpole transmitters then wifi networks. Wifi transmitters can easily be hidden. If you're against a muni wifi network then don't use it! The establishment of a city wifi network will not affect the city's budget, because it's free! Why is anyone against this? This isn't about city parks either, although i would personally love to be able to use my laptop perched in golden gate park. This is about wifi coverage for the entire city, meaning every residence. It will help bridge the digital divide that are affecting countless poor families in this city. It will allow anyone to get online anywhere in the city, including their homes or at work. Every non-profit organization in the city will benefit, as will every business. If you still want your own ISP, then you can use it. It will probably be better. But having citywide wifi will change this city for the better. There will be a huge economic increase as money stops pouring out of the san francisco economy into the coffers of out of town ISPs. Why are people against this? This is free for the city! I don't understand the opposition. This much opposition has to have grassroots from comcast and other ISPs who will loose out bigtime when city wifi comes online. The city has so much to gain from this and absolutely nothing to loose. Let's round up all these whining pieces of crap and put them in charge of the new bay bridge planning or something. It infuriates me that there is opposition to something that will be so great for this city and won't cost us a dime. What the fck are these technophobic losers whining about? Get a serious issue. Please don't ruin the chance of free citywide wifi for the rest of us. -Ziggy

Kimo Crossman

Tue, 15 May 2007 18:50:39 -0800

@Ziggy Have you read the huge stack of stories about general lack of interest and slight disappointment in cities (yes including EarthLink ones) that have attempted Muni Wifi rollouts? Hello? people mostly use computers indoors - not in the sunny park. Guess what? most have a wired connection or an indoor wifi router. And Muni wifi didn't change their lives... What do these cities have to show for the efforts? Frankenpole transmitters.

Jerry Jarvis

Tue, 15 May 2007 18:15:28 -0800

If the city provided wifi I would switch just to support the city.Besides when you got a bitch with the city you can actually easily hold the city accountable easier than a corporation.

Ziggy Tomcich

Tue, 15 May 2007 17:49:27 -0800

How much is Comcast giving Chris Daly? Free wifi is a no brainer. I think the Daly and those who are opposing it are pathetic. Do they honestly think the city can provide free wifi cheaper and better then Earthlink/google? The city isn't paying them anything for this! Why not let google/earthlink try? If you don't like the job earthlink/google does then don't use it! It's free. We're not talking about building a new bridge here. Why is there so much opposition to something that would be so good for so many people and cost the city absolutely nothing? Obviously, the opposition to free wifi is coming from those ISPs who are going to start loosing customers left and right once it goes online. There is no credible or rational reason to oppose this, unless you're receiving campaign contributions from competing ISPs. I don't care if the protest was staged. If i'd have known about it, i would've joined them. Free wifi would be great for this city. If Google/earthlink does a half-ass job of implementing it, it will still be many times better then what we have right now. -Ziggy

CRS

Tue, 15 May 2007 14:25:13 -0800

OK: I was somewhat off-topic in my reply suggesting a cheaper, faster home ISP rather than addressing WiFi use (such as that at a Muni stop), but my comment was in reply to a comment quoting home service prices. And I did write, "Until such time as there is free WiFi..." But hey, I just checked: It looks like the neighborhood around 18th & Church has RCN service. So if you live there, you can check it out. Even if AT&T DSL can't be had for "technical and legal reasons," there are other providers in SF besides those two... Basically I wanted to point out that there is a choice; you don't have to pay the high Comcast price.

J

Tue, 15 May 2007 13:43:19 -0800

I would welcome the opportunity to get service from someone besides Comcast at $57.95 per month plus taxes and fees (this is the price folks pay who don't need/want cable television from Comcast, which provides a $15 discount on the high speed Internet in return for paying to watch the idiot box (television)). RCN only offers service in certain areas. DSL isn't available for some folks for technical or whatever other reason. And again... these don't help when you're wanting to access NextMuni.com while standing on the Muni Metro platform at 18th and Church.

CRS

Tue, 15 May 2007 13:21:57 -0800

"Not everybody can afford $58 per month Comcast cable modems." Woof! $58/month!? That's kinda steep. Until such time as there is free WiFi (from whomever), check out the other high speed providers in town: RCN.com (1-800-RING-RCN) and AT&T and a bunch of others. They are way cheaper than $58! Better service and speed, too.

Paul Lindner

Tue, 15 May 2007 12:36:30 -0800

People seem to forget that ubiquitous wifi will enable many city services to run more effectively. Law Enforcement, social workers, any city worker with a laptop will be more effective with a working city-wide wifi system. This hemming and hawing is just stupid.

Kimo Crossman

Tue, 15 May 2007 12:21:53 -0800

um, the government run library has a long long history of protecting your checkout records. And by the way, if the network never collects the history then it can't be produced.

J

Tue, 15 May 2007 12:21:49 -0800

Clearly, all of us already have Internet access, so we can afford to wait longer and longer and .... Here are a few other thoughts: Just because Earthlink and Google gets this deal, do you think AT&T and Comcast will stop offering landline Internet access? I totally agree with the ACLU notions of protecting privacy, but that can be entered into the contract down the road. However, we give up privacy in exchange for "free" Internet web sites and email services all the time. Our federal government is likely monitoring it all ... who are we kidding about protecting our privacy when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are running things (into the ground)? Not everybody can afford $58 per month Comcast cable modems. Not everybody CAN get DSL (for whatever legal or technical reasons). Not everybody wants to sit in their homes all day when the weather is beautiful outside. If the City wants to provide City-wide wireless Internet, then they will have the opportunity to end the Earthlink deal in 4 years is my understanding and do just that. In the meanwhile, kids in Hunter's Point who might benefit from Wi-Fi Internet for free will have to wait to prepare themselves to compete in the knowledge economy of America.

g

Tue, 15 May 2007 11:51:57 -0800

"Go to Manhattan and you'll see how fast and efficient a government-run transit system can be when it has the resources. The NY Metro is Manhattan's greatest asset." Unfortunately, this is San Francisco, not NYC. NYC actually has a competent city government. "Let's have Google run our Wi-Fi so they can hand over dissidents to our government just like they did in China. " As opposed to a government-run system that wouldn't even have to go through a middleman to monitor internet traffic?

Erika

Tue, 15 May 2007 10:55:34 -0800

Yeah, lets have General Motors buy MUNI so they can eliminate it, just like they did in L.A. fifty years ago. Go to Manhattan and you'll see how fast and efficient a government-run transit system can be when it has the resources. The NY Metro is Manhattan's greatest asset. Clear Channel radio stations went off air after Katrina, but a low power non-commercial station remained on air and saved lives by providing vital information. Let's have Google run our Wi-Fi so they can hand over dissidents to our government just like they did in China.

KWillets

Tue, 15 May 2007 10:27:25 -0800

Free Wifi is good, which is why I signed up for Meraki (haven't read the TOS yet, but it might work). The Google/DoubleClick/Earthlink WiFi/Search/Ads monitor-your-lifestream system seems a bit overreaching, though. Google is clearly going into the Big Brother advertising business. Has the city done anything about privacy issues?

Kelly

Tue, 15 May 2007 10:26:25 -0800

It's absurd to think that it makes any sense whatsoever for us to use taxpayer dollars for wifi when we can get it at no cost. Of course it's going to be somewhat slower than other options, it's FREE. It's a good start and it would allow many who don't have access at all now to gain access to the internet. This opposition from Daly is just another political move. Ridiculous.

g

Tue, 15 May 2007 10:04:15 -0800

"Remain standing if you believe Halliburton and Blackwater have done a great job rebuilding Iraq." Or if you believe the city has done a great job running MUNI, or if you think the BoS and/or Mayor Newsom are doing a heckuva job.

Karsty

Tue, 15 May 2007 10:03:49 -0800

Personally, I'd be OK with the Google/Earthlink deal if you could get free access without having to accept cookies or log in to a user account. Google should be happy with being able to target ads based on geographic location -- they don't also need to know every search string, driving direction query and online purchase that I make and try their best to link that to my real name. Since studies have shown (sorry, I don't have a link handy) that most people aren't aware of the information that Google and others collect and when they're enlightened they're against it, a city-owned network should ensure anonymity for all its users. I'm sure Google would still scrape by financially in such a scheme. I don't buy the idea that this will "bridge the digital divide" -- I think this will mostly be used by current laptop owners that want to surf the net from a park or something. Anyway, I prefer the current scheme of going to a cafe and logging on to their free network and won't use the Google network if it ever comes available.

Kay

Tue, 15 May 2007 09:45:57 -0800

i can't believe that after all this time, people are still preaching this proposal as "free" wifi or an essential service. i'm convinced that these folks really like the idea in theory, but haven't actually read any of it, because otherwise they'd realize that most people won't even have access to this supposed essential service, especially those who could really use a free wifi network.

Erika

Tue, 15 May 2007 09:24:12 -0800

Municipal wi fi saved lives after Katrina - it was still running after the corporate-run systems were down. It allowed people to share vital information. Remain standing if you believe Halliburton and Blackwater have done a great job rebuilding Iraq.

Greg

Tue, 15 May 2007 09:24:04 -0800

I think it's hilarious the City wants to make us all dependent on earthlink, which is well known for having some of the worst customer service of any ISP in the US, outsources much of said customer service to India and the Phillipines, and somehow believes they can servce a city as geographically challenged as SF with aging techonology like "Wifi". Just remember - for "free" you get a service that's not very fast, and their signals can interfere with your own home wifi network - and you can't stop the City from interfering with your own signal. So if you want Apple TV or anything else that uses your home wifi high speed network, beware. The city may be building something that will force you to buy Google Earthlink's 20 bucks a month slow service. Genius on all sides.

Seamus Furr

Tue, 15 May 2007 09:20:07 -0800

Remember back in '82 when the City hired 10 new FTE to issue everyone free Betamaxes? And then in '94, when we all got Apple Newtons? And then in '99, when the City issued $17 million in bonds to distribute CueCats to all residents? Wi-Fi technology will certainly endure 4ever! And nobody's better suited to keep it fresh than the City government.

abw

Tue, 15 May 2007 08:54:48 -0800

Who cares who the people with the fake signs are? Ignore them. J is right - the last thing the city needs is to spend a bunch of money on what is essentially a luxury when basic civic needs are not being met. If Google and Earthlink want to pay for it, let them. I like free wi-fi, and frankly I don't give a damn who I get it from be it Earthlink, Google, the gummint, Starbucks, or my neighbor's unsecured router. I just don't want my tax dollars spent on something totally unnecessary when there are lots of urgent, necessary things like cops, Muni and housing that this city needs to address.

h. brown

Tue, 15 May 2007 06:50:51 -0800

campers, Michael's Civiccenterblogspot.com (something like that) is reporting today that he interviewed the 'demonstrators' and they were paid by Sam Singer of Singer and Associates, a PR firm doing mostly political image making. The black contingent was led to the Rev. Arnold Townsend who sells black faces for however much an appearance he can get. It's the American way. h.

kimo crossman

Tue, 15 May 2007 06:20:42 -0800

For people that doubt the city's ability to run a wifi network, they seem to forget the fire and police communications systems. And hello? the free library (an information system) and they also offer free computer and wifi access in all their buildings. First step: all city buildings should have free uncensored wifi. Isn't it a little surprising that even now, City Hall doesn't have free wifi? One wonders if this has to do with their view of online journalists and independent bloggers?

TheRobin

Mon, 14 May 2007 21:30:22 -0800

I can't wait to have our lean and mean, cost-efficient, fraud-free city government take on the job of providing us with free wifi! Who is this Goggle? And what do they know about the internet that Chris Daly doesn't?

MattyMatt

Mon, 14 May 2007 21:23:18 -0800

I feel totally out of touch here, but I have no idea who these people are or what their argument is. Who hired them? It's obviously a little suspicious that their signs all appear to have been designed in the same boardroom.

J

Mon, 14 May 2007 21:06:59 -0800

Okay - so the deal under consideration was the Earthlink and Google private/public partnership that wouldn't cost the City additional money - would actually provide some additional revenue if things worked out. It was tabled until July 11th, more or less, to give Jake McGoldrick more time to develop the notion of the City of San Francisco creating and running its own Wi-Fi Internet access system. Watch the video of the meeting yourself on SF Government TV whenever it becomes available (Archive>Supervisors>Budget meeting on 5/14/2007). Stand up if you believe the City of San Francisco has the ADDITIONAL money to spend on creating an entirely new bureaucratic agency and need for personnel that a city-owned system would create. Remain standing if you think the City would be able to run such an operation more efficiently than Google and Earthlink. Remain standing if you think we need more City employees who earn retirement health care benefits after just 5 years of working for the City. Remain standing if you believe we'd be better off creating a City-owned Internet operation instead of focusing on hiring more police. The epicenter of Internet innovation is being surpassed by Portland, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Oakland County, Michigan - a suburb of Detroit in the rollout of free wireless Internet access for its residents. Comcast and AT&T couldn't be happier with Chris Daly's decision today.

auweia1

Mon, 14 May 2007 21:01:28 -0800

it's just money, same old thing...nothing new here if you want something of a more independent view and reporting on public/private wifi, as in nationwide vs SF and the problems, benefits across the country, check out http://www.dslreports.com/ I'd say about once a week they report on some city wifi problem somewhere on the globe, and best of all, they're not tied to the local politics...yay! yep, there's pros and cons of each system..I just suggest looking at what happened to other cities already..This seems to be largely ignored so far, locally

auweia1

Mon, 14 May 2007 21:00:50 -0800

it's just money, same old thing...nothing new here if you want something of a more independant view and reporting on public/private wifi, as in nationwide vs SF and the problems, benefits across the country, check out http://www.dslreports.com/ I'd say about once a week thye report on some city wifi problem somwhere on the globe, and best of all, they're not tied to the local politics...yay! yep, there's pros and cons of each system..I just suggest looking at what happened to other cities already..This seems to be largely ignored so far, locally