Last year Google and Earthlink won a joint bid to provide free Wi-Fi access to San Francisco. But some want to put the clamps on the deal and start over, according to David Needle in his article, “Hey Google: Hold Up on Wi-Fi By The Bay.” Activist groups are protesting to the Wi-Fi plan as they want the city to use the extra capacity in its existing high-speed fiber optic network as the “backbone to build a truly modern, fast, and free, public communications system.” They want to see the city install as much fiber as possible as well as Wi-Fi.
The speed of service that Google will be providing would be 300 kilobits per second, which is much faster than dial-up Internet service but slower than some broadband. However, activists want a higher speed option, especially since the entire Internet infrastructure is moving towards broadband fiber. They complain that the deal gives Google/Earthlink a monopoly deal when a city-run operation could provide free Internet service at speeds at least ten times faster.
At this time, Google’s project is being delayed as they need more wireless antennae. However, the activists are glad because they want to pursue a better plan that won’t keep San Francisco behind the rest of the world.
Hmmm…When did Google start providing Internet service? I am quite surprised how a large city has contracted with Google, who has very limited experience in this area. But I’m also wondering how difficult of a job this may be for Google – or for any company who would have won the bid. San Francisco is a big city and has lots of hills, and I bet it must be difficult to thoroughly blanket the city with Wi-Fi coverage. It’s no doubt that Google is having delays, as they probably need more antennae then they anticipated.
But there are definitely its advantages and disadvantages with this project. It’s great that everyone in San Francisco will get free Internet service, no matter where they are within the city limits. However, the disadvantage of this is that a free service can easily become less sustainable in the long run. If no one is paying for it, it will be difficult to upgrade the service and networks. But perhaps from advertisement is where Google will make its money.
And my last thought is, why did San Francisco need or want to create this city Internet plan? It’s a metropolitan city, and I’m sure most people have Internet access, many Wi-Fi hotspots, and overall widespread broadband availability. Wouldn’t they be ‘slowing’ the city down with this 300 kbs system?
2 comments:
I don't think I've seen a good plan for a large area wireless implementation plan as of yet. A small rural city is one thing, a massive city like Los Angeles or San Francisco is a completely different matter. At this point in time, I don't think the support infrastructure exists to implement wireless for a large city to get a result other than just a huge headache.
The implementation of this will be a nightmare. SF is definitely not the best testbed for this sort of thing, simply because of geography. Heavy fog, hills, and densely-packed tall buildings all make complete wireless coverage incredibly difficult to build. Just covering this university campus with wireless is insane enough, as I know from personal experience. I'm just glad I'm not the one trying to implement the net in SF.
Post a Comment