| Art Alexion on 22 Nov 2004 22:53:02 -0000 |
|
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 11:14 -0500, George Gallen wrote: > that makes sense however. And for major cities, this shouldn't > be a stopping point. What phone company would want to take on > such a costly, non-profitable task? That's what municipal > govenments are for, to pay for things that will never see a > profit, and benefit most of the people who won't use it. Right. > > I say that in the sense, If you already have cable internet, will > you drop it when the city goes wireless? or will you continue > to use your own cable internet connection? Depends on what effect the free network will have on cable prices. For most people who pay attention to their bills, lets compare $40/month ($480/year) to $0. For those of us without cable TV, the comparison is $54/month vs. $0/month. Assuming the free system is reasonably reliable, I can think of a lot of things I could do with an extra $54/month. > > I see major issues with this plan. I see rampant identity theft > that will occur with people driving around sniffing packets pulling > emails and files right out of the air. True, but this exists in many areas anyway and will continue to grow as homeowners without a security clue continue to add wireless home networks. > The potential for child porn > to be downloaded while sitting in your car looking at the kids > playing in the playgrounds, or in the parks, totally anonymously. Huh? > > As well, I can envision the drug dealers utilizing this free > anonymous > network for inventory and distribution services. You totally overestimate Philadelphia drug dealers. Right now, they do fine with cell phones at the street level and even a level or two above. Most don't even use scanners, thinking that the penalty for being found with a scanner is greater than being found with a couple of grams of heroin. Street workers are recruited from the desperate and almost-desperate -- not the kind of people who would own a computer or who the upper level people trust enough to lend a computer. And the upper level people are not that dumb. They understand anonymity much better than most of us -- using cash for everything even when credit is not a problem. They understand that a computer that falls into the hands of a guy like Jon Nelson would result in the take-down of the entire organization. > > > I really like the idea, but the city has a lot of other issues to > deal with first. You can't be laying off Police and Firefighters and > then instituting a wireless plan like this....doesn't make sense. Totally true, and totally besides the point. Certain projects are funded -- because of their perceived importance and because they tend to be inexpensive compared to pensions and transit systems -- even in the toughest budgets. Things like the Art Museum and the Mummers. I suspect that city leaders perceive that being one of the first major cities to do this is well worth the expense, in benefits that follow a reputation for being innovative. Art Attachment:
signature.asc
|
|