Maybe a few of us watched Star-Trek and just felt that by now, the world would be in great sync with itself. Technology would fiber-optic the way to a new brighter tomorrow!
Well, we have Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner Cable and Cox, among the big names, duking it out from community to community, laying lines down the socioeconomic ladder, from the deepest pockets to the widest market. If you live in any semi-affluent community, or a population density withmore than just poor incomes, you have access to broadband Internet.
In the tradition of free, the gadget savvy have come to enjoy wireless hot-zones; coffee shops let you buzz the net while you get your buzz on. The idea is that complex individuals own laptops and enjoy surfing the net to fulfill their cosmopolitan agendas in stunningly sleek style. What says International more than a Java, a quick blog post to your blogring in China ( I envision a cafe of metro sexual Chinese nationals trying to act uncommunist, basically Cubans) and a short read of your favorite new metaphysical review book, ( Why the I in me is more than your I?).
Clearly, the be-smudged hands of auto mechanics in a Denny’s on laptops typing e-mails seems unlikely, but that doesn’t justify leaving a group to the way side. Society is reaching a large enough mass that information is nearly a utility in a democratic society. Should that be the case, doesn’t it seem reasonable that any cutting edge city provides its members free wireless access? That’s what Philadelphia is finding out.
Philadelphia is working hard to get their city entirely wireless, but there is a party concerned about these developments. In the case of Philadelphia, Verizon stands to loose a potentially large customer base to wireless Internet. You see, they weren’t offered a chance to make the city wireless, the city just took it on. So a large Internet provider has lost the opportunity to set-up and service a large base of customers.
I doubt Verizon was getting around to any sort of public wireless zone of this magnitude anytime soon. It just happens, I suppose, that billing is easier on a tax basis then a per user fee. I would agree, minimally, that a wireless enabled city is attractive to a sect of society that is great at turning out business. This is the stuff that modern joes love, educated and ambitious modern joes who represent the newer service industry America is hoping to own. For a city that wants to attract youthful spirit, this is a wonderful move.
Then we have a deal Mr. Gubbament?
You see, that’s the one hang up on this kind of plan. While all the users are busy on line enjoying their new civic candy, it’s easy to forget who owns the candy shop. The idea of government operating lines of information should make a few people queasy. If you really want a dose of paranoia, take a look at the FBI’s plans to improve on Carnivore which we probably wouldn’t have known about if it weren’t for a private Internet company notifying the public.
By the way, if you didn’t know, e-mails are public domain and not guaranteed privacy in the same ways you can expect of your land mail. It’s actually easier to get your e-mails without your permission than your US Mail. Who would’ve thought?
All government search schemes aside, you could weigh that wireless service is in the public domain anyways. After all, it is quite legal to eaves drop in public, take photos in public and video tape.. in public. Why would watching your Internet habits be of any different consequence? I can see that point, however, it makes the point of wireless availability mute when you consider what people feel they ‘need’ their Internet for these days. Banking, stock exchanges and communications to valuable contacts on valuable topics.
Of course, in that regard, air-waves are public domain. That’s the whole mission statement of the FCC in a nutshell. Internet users should be thankful regulations haven’t kicked in based on this very technology. But this is different. This is more like your cell phone, an area where you again, have the expectancy of privacy. So, for now, we’ll leave this out of the argument. I bring it up, because some bobble head is going to use it as an argument for regulation and control. Does the government assert rights on the people, or is it supposed to assert the rights of the people?
What motivation would Verizon or Comcast feel in this wireless notion if it weren’t for the government threatening the business? It’s surprising to have the government actually ahead of the marketing of businesses, but it may come with a substantial benefit. The stimulation of a new service at a great price. After all, I think capitalism defeats itself if government becomes able to provide services and products at competitive rates to the private sector. When that happens, you have no reason to doubt every CEO is the fattest, hungriest greediest pig you have ever smelled in the same country with.
Your state should be able to offer really crappy rates compared to the private sector, unless it contains a specific advantage, like mail. Government already has to know where everyone lives, why not let them deliver the mail? The same argument doesn’t hold for Internet. Indeed, it’s the private sector that already has the infrastructure in place to implement this plan. So it should say something about the fatness of pockets of Internet companies that haven’t offered this to us for cheaper already. That is.. they are really damned fat.
If you want to impress me, government, let’s increase the library system to meet the capacity of Internet use. Obviously, people want nice coffee and atmosphere with their books. Cater to it! And build them in the poorest neighborhoods, too. Give those kids something more to do, give them a draw to a library… I promise you they will have greater hopes if they can see beyond the grime they grow with every day. I can’t see the investment in wireless alone, but I can see provided Internet stations, which only seem best housed in libraries. Not just the ones you have, but more.
Of course, I’m lucky to live in Kansas, where the state did place a focus on spreading broadband through out the state to every school. It recognized this need in a school setting. Why should the children benefit so much from Internet at school and not in their home time, or at a library?
I can’t materialize my ideal agenda, so the reality is I find the private sector more agile and better suited to set-up and bill for wireless Internet services. I don’t mind if that billing goes to the state, so long as I’m not forfeiting any freedoms. If I have to find one more bill to add to my life, I think I’d have to consider switching countries.
Be weary the wow and pizazz city-wide Internet is likely to generate. I for see it as a great sounding platform for some future mayor to run on, only because it makes him/her appear progressive and fresh, not because of a deep weighing of the risks and rewards involved.
Most of this post was spawned from a report I heard this morning on NPR. Please feel free to visit this story and hear the same program I heard.
Post a Comment