LA Wi-Fi Initiative

[Rich Tate]

You can now add Los Angeles to the list of cities that will house a free or inexpensive citywide Wi-Fi network. The mayor has stated that they are aiming for 2009 to have adequate time to complete the project.

The mayor said: “By giving every resident high-speed access, we will transform Los Angeles into a cutting-edge city across every neighborhood and every economic sector.”

 

[pxc]

I knew there had to be a catch:

This LA Wi-Fi Initiative is being planned to provide Internet services to the city’s four million residents.

LA County is pretty huge and of course has a lot more than 4 million residents (around 10 million now according to the US Census Bureau). Not quite "every resident." Yet again the whole county gets to subsidize downtown.

I'd prefer if they spent the $60 million on fixing the streets (especially traffic lines) and at least putting reflectors down so you can see at night when it rains in areas besides downtown.

 

[markt435]

Figures. They do really need to fix the roads though.

 

[n1ce_hat]

That would be some damn slow 'net. AOL style.

 

[tickle_me_emo]

I'm sure they'd want to put the hot spots where people actually have wireless cards. Places like Compton, Inglewood, Huntington Park, etc... aren't the highest priority. That's probably why they wouldn't get it to all ~10 million people.

 

[Lethal]

LA County is pretty huge and of course has a lot more than 4 million residents (around 10 million now according to the US Census Bureau). Not quite "every resident." Yet again the whole county gets to subsidize downtown.

Did you read the article? It said:

The setup of the infrastructure for this initiative would cost the city around 60 million dollars. They plan to fund it through advertisers and telecommunication providers.

And L.A. city ! = L.A. County.

I recall a movement to provide free wifi in Culver City, people were up in arms over the fact that they planned to disallow access to porn and p2p. Imagine that... the city wants to give you free wifi and people will bitch that it doesn't include porn.

 

[pxc]

And L.A. city ! = L.A. County.

"The city" actually has defined boundaries. I looked up a map earlier. You'd probably be surprised to see "Los Angeles City" boundaries. http://www.laalmanac.com/geography/ge30ba.htm

The 4 million figure still isn't likely to include anything past downtown and surrounding areas. Even if it did, it's still not fair for 60% of people to pay for something only 40% benefit from, especially when other parts of the "city" are in such a bad state of repair.

Also infrastructure set up != continuing costs of running the thing. The $60 million figure seems to be for the former ("cost the city") and advertising seems to cover the latter.

 

[kush]

LA City (esp the Downtown area) != LA County. It's like comparing an ounce a ton.

Have to agree with the fixing roads comment - it's really ridiculous, esp one particular area in Hollywood near the Kaiser Center/Scientology - Figueroa I think it was..Was going back & forth from SM last year visting my grandfather in the hospital...There was this one set of potholes I kept hitting - I thought it was going to rip the undercarriage from the car!

And to subsidize the internet access for the people in Downtown? Fucking ridiculous..Theres pretty much only:

1) homeless who won't have a PC anyway
2) Businesses with 'net access already
3) Rich dumbasses moving into the converted lofts who
a) Can afford 'normal' access - why subsidize these idiots
b) Alot of them have building wide access as part of residency anyway.

 

[markt435]

"The city" actually has defined boundaries. I looked up a map earlier. You'd probably be surprised to see "Los Angeles City" boundaries. http://www.laalmanac.com/geography/ge30ba.htm

The 4 million figure still isn't likely to include anything past downtown and surrounding areas. Even if it did, it's still not fair for 60% of people to pay for something only 40% benefit from, especially when other parts of the "city" are in such a bad state of repair.

Also infrastructure set up != continuing costs of running the thing. The $60 million figure seems to be for the former ("cost the city") and advertising seems to cover the latter.

lol i live in lancaster. good thing i don't have to deal with LA on a daily basis.

 

[odoe]

This also ties in with the whole downtown revitalization project that has been in the works for a while now. We're talking about the redevelopment of buildings where the homeless sleep into $4 million dollar lofts and the like. It will be interesting to see where this project goes.

 

[Lethal]

Yes, you are right in that one cannot even avail themselves of free wifi without the requisite equipment. While wifi may be more common on laptops, it is not generally included with standard desktop PCs.

Personally, I'm skeptical that such a plan will actually help the lower income people it's supposed to benefit. Even if "free wifi for everyone" became an option, I think I'd probably rather stick to a reliable service I pay for. I'd give it a shot if my provider tanked on me, though.

 

[swatbat]

Yes, you are right in that one cannot even avail themselves of free wifi without the requisite equipment. While wifi may be more common on laptops, it is not generally included with standard desktop PCs.

Personally, I'm skeptical that such a plan will actually help the lower income people it's supposed to benefit. Even if "free wifi for everyone" became an option, I think I'd probably rather stick to a reliable service I pay for. I'd give it a shot if my provider tanked on me, though.

I agree with you on this but hell it would be nice to have around the city to use with your laptop.

 

[vincentfox]

There's a REASON that previous advertiser-supported "free" internet ideas have flopped.

Yet gov'ts will keep throwing good money down a hole.

I am technical lead for a small WISP in Atlanta. Atlanta recently had a similar effort. We read the RFP and had to laugh at it. All kinds of crazy requirements, like ability to support vehicles in motion up to 60 MPH, etc. All for very little money and ZERO assurances of contract lockin. Basically they were saying you could use their light-poles and towers, but only if you offered a bunch of freebies, and at ANY TIME they could kick you out and switch to some other operator. Yeah, what a brilliant idea.

These ideas are all ridiculous. The interference and sprawl of LA would make it expensive and inefficient.

 

[amdfan25]

Read in the LA Times that SF was going to give free citywide Wi-Fi but ppl whined because it was going to be run by Google. Oh well, something about a private company controlling a utility. As for the potholes, the mayor did launch some kind of initiative to fill every one in the city...in fact i run over a couple each day going to/from work.

 

[Ockie]

They've been working on it here in Michigan for years. Free wifi for all in Oakland County.

 

[RandomNY]

Welll one positive would be that the drug dealers in Compton can check Craig's list for potential clients...

They want to do they same thing here on LONG ISLAND where I live.

The idiot that is going to run it was asked by a reporter,"How much will this cost the taxpayers?", the idiot woman said," Oh it won't cost anybody anything, the service will be free for all"(while she was saying this nonsense she had the look on her face like how dare you ask me this question.), again the reporter asked,"HOW MUCH WILL THE COST THE TAXPAYERS?", again and getting more annoyed the woman said,"Oh the service is free for everyone, why do you keep asking how much it will cost?"

They ended the press conference after that...

 

[Ockie]

Welll one positive would be that the drug dealers in Compton can check Craig's list for potential clients...

They want to do they same thing here on LONG ISLAND where I live.

The idiot that is going to run it was asked by a reporter,"How much will this cost the taxpayers?", the idiot woman said," Oh it won't cost anybody anything, the service will be free for all"(while she was saying this nonsense she had the look on her face like how dare you ask me this question.), again the reporter asked,"HOW MUCH WILL THE COST THE TAXPAYERS?", again and getting more annoyed the woman said,"Oh the service is free for everyone, why do you keep asking how much it will cost?"

They ended the press conference after that...

Private companies are funding these large networks. The only question that you should ask is... what's in it for them... what are they going to levy upon the taxpayer for this "free internet"

 

[[Tripod]MajorPayne]

Maybe forced advertisement on their networks? When you try to go to a site, you get redirected through their "ad" server real quick? That is one option, I guess, but it would seem like a huge no-no to misdirect people's Internet traffic. Eh, seems to me that widespread free Wi-fi is one of those things (like communism) that looks good on paper, but often fails or is inadequate in practice.

Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone pays for all of the stuff. Taxpayers, ahoy!