Wireless Dublin plan?

luckat

Remember that plan to make Dublin an all-wireless zone? Who was the politician who announced it?

(It was such a sensible, forward-thinking, business-friendly, arts-friendly plan that I'm not really surprised it's sunk forgotten into the past - but who *was* it? What happened to it?)

sovtek

luckat wrote: »

Remember that plan to make Dublin an all-wireless zone? Who was the politician who announced it?

(It was such a sensible, forward-thinking, business-friendly, arts-friendly plan that I'm not really surprised it's sunk forgotten into the past - but who *was* it? What happened to it?)

They are probably trying to still find a way to over charge us for it.

monkeyfudge

Apparently Prague tried to do it and got fined by the EU... so plans for Dublin are on hold.

luckat

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Apparently Prague tried to do it and got fined by the EU... so plans for Dublin are on hold.

Fined for what, Monkeyfudge, do you know? Why should the EU want to stamp on something that would be a boon to business?

monkeyfudge

I was at a confernece last week and Patricia McKenna mentioned it... I'll have to look it up.

But I think it was because the city would be affecting the business of the likes of Eircom and BT who provide hotspots for a charge.

luckat

The words "the greater good" tremble on my lips...

Tomas_V

Not very well thought out.

Somebody would have to pay for the bandwidth & management and a wide-open system would make Dublin a centre of excellence for spamming & illegal/untraceable downloading. I was was at a confereance a few months back where there was free WiFi, it was useless, the bandwidth was hogged by people accessing torrents.

Unless, what was proposed was a 'walled-garden' where the public could 'safely' surf sites belonging to sponsors & local businesses, I don't see it as practical.

Wifi hotspots are going out of fashion as reasonable priced 3.5g options become available to mobile phone users.

luckat

Out of fashion, really? It seems to me that there are more now than there ever were.

Couple of pieces about the Prague biz:

http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/104439

Prague's City-Wide Free Wireless Project Runs Into Telcom Opposition

Mar 15, 2007, By Indrajit Basu

<snip confusing intro>

The ambitious free wireless Internet service that the municipality in Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic, originally proposed in January 2006 to provide wireless broadband to more than a million residents has now been divided into two phases. And it has been renamed as "Wireless Prague."

The first phase -- Phase One -- entails building a backbone network in 21 out of total 57 Prague districts. Per the latest plan, this will now only allow free 64 kbps access for citizen to access City Hall services. Additionally, this network will also be used to enable the schools and the City Hall offices access the Internet at a cost to be borne by the city government. Phase One is already under implementation.

<further snip>

and interestingly:

http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2007/01/10/free-wi-fi-coming-soon-to-prague.php

<snippage above and below>

Municipal plans to provide Prague residents with free wireless access have stalled, but a fast-growing Irish company is coming to the city to satisfy this demand, offering a simple system to help cafés and hotels provide free, ad-supported broadband wireless service to their customers. The first hotspot will open Jan. 20 at Café Vyšehrad, with the company planning to install "several hundred" more hotspots this year.

(That story has obviously been leapfrogged by the later one I quote first, but it's interesting that an Irish firm was going to do it.)

People downloading torrents - well, I suppose this is a temporary thing, in that bandwidth will increase. We can all remember when there was great ullagoning about people filling up limited hard drives with music...

Tomas_V

luckat wrote: »

Out of fashion, really? It seems to me that there are more now than there ever were.

Have you heard of the the 'Springfield MonoRail?'

Making a system pay its way and ensuring its not abused are key elements to making such a facility work. The proponents of free WiFi must answer these questions. Cellphone-based broadband will win because its possible to charge for use and to trace & disconnect abusers.

luckat wrote: »

People downloading torrents ...... bandwidth will increase.

Quite why Dublin taxpayers should want to finance a system to allow unlimited free downloads of stolen movies, is unclear to me, could you explain?

leninbenjamin

they shouldn't even consider something so ambitious while broadband penetration is low in this country.

sidenote: Tomas_V I think you're exaggerating the negatives of hotspots a bit. While they are prone to abuse, they are very valuable to have in certain locations. the future will probably be a happy medium of both imo.

luckat

Was talking to someone over the weekend who told me that Brussels is virtually an open wireless area.

Tomas_V

leninbenjamin wrote: »

they shouldn't even consider something so ambitious while broadband penetration is low in this country.

sidenote: Tomas_V I think you're exaggerating the negatives of hotspots a bit. While they are prone to abuse, they are very valuable to have in certain locations. the future will probably be a happy medium of both imo.

The project itself (if a project exists) is the problem. The choice of technology (WiFi) is only suitable for hotspots, not for large-area use. Nobody knows what services would be provided, who will use it and who will pay for it.

It's no wonder the idea sank.

Victor

"Free is theft" - me.

The city council has an awful lot of available bandwidth throughout the city thanks to the traffic control system. I suspect the arguments arise where the council is both a provider of services (to date it only served its own internal customers) and a regulator - of roadspace.

The telecoms companies have been whining for years at the city council regulating road works and not allowing them a free for all.

Tomas_V

luckat wrote: »

Was talking to someone over the weekend who told me that Brussels is virtually an open wireless area.

If that's true, it's quite an accomplishment. Brussels covers an area of some 600 square kilometres.

They have installed a number of Internet-access kiosks which double as hotspots.

But, let's get to the point: why do it? Why should we, the taxpayer, finance this?

luckat

Twould make Dublin very business-friendly, or so it seems to me.

oscarBravo

A few points:

• It's one of those things that's almost impossible to do well, technically. The radio planning involved would be immensely complicated, even if the frequencies in question were relatively interference-free. Given the proliferation of WiFi routers in the city already...
• It actually does have the potential to be anti-competitive. Several companies have invested a fortune in building wireless networks to sell services to the public. If the government starts offering those services for free, it undermines those companies' business models.

Finally,

• I'm not entirely certain how relevant this is to Politics.

Disclaimer: I run a wireless ISP, but not in Dublin.

Dont be at yourself

Google do something similar in Mountain View, and I believe they also bid for a contract to bring free wifi to San Fransisco (though I stand to correction on that one). As such, from a technical stand-point at least, it would be appear to be viable.

http://wifi.google.com

I'm not read up on the subject, but would something like WiMAX not be a more applicable technology in delivering blanket wireless internet coverage over a large area?

Tomas_V

oscarBravo wrote: »

Disclaimer: I run a wireless ISP, but not in Dublin.

Because a 'sound-bite' politician proposed it without any thought as to cost, benefit or technical feasibility of using WiFi.

oscarBravo

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Google do something similar in Mountain View, and I believe they also bid for a contract to bring free wifi to San Fransisco (though I stand to correction on that one). As such, from a technical stand-point at least, it would be appear to be viable.

http://wifi.google.com

Begs the question: assuming it works fairly well, how much did it cost to do it well? It's one thing a corporate giant like Google doing it for philanthropic reasons; it's altogether something else for a local authority to do it for political reasons.

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I'm not read up on the subject, but would something like WiMAX not be a more applicable technology in delivering blanket wireless internet coverage over a large area?

It's a better fit, but not a runner until every laptop has a WiMAX radio in it instead of the ubiqitous WiFi radios that are in them now.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

It actually does have the potential to be anti-competitive. Several companies have invested a fortune in building wireless networks to sell services to the public. If the government starts offering those services for free, it undermines those companies' business models. [/list] Finally,

• I'm not entirely certain how relevant this is to Politics.

That's not "anti-competitive". It's in the public interest. Those companies do not own the electromagnetic spectrum. We do!
It's like subsidizing a bus service for public transport.

Tomas_V

sovtek wrote: »

It's like subsidizing a bus service for public transport.

Not a great example. The bus service brings shoppers and workers into the city.

If open Internet access is provided would we not just be subsidising illegal file-sharing, porn-surfing and buying stuff from foreign mail-order companies? Why should we pay for that?

sovtek

Tomas_V wrote: »

Not a great example. The bus service brings shoppers and workers into the city.

If open Internet access is provided would we not just be subsidising illegal file-sharing, porn-surfing and buying stuff from foreign mail-order companies? Why should we pay for that?

The bus brings in anyone just as an open wireless system could be used by everyone. It's a public service we all pay for and (should) own. Just like we own the electromagnetic spectrum. The only problem with file sharing and porn surfing is bandwidth...which could be limited per node AFAIK.

RedPlanet

I don't see why we shouldn't do it.
Such a move could really boost e-commerce and provide a sound base for technology companies setting up shop (or staying here); instead of leaving for India.
I can see the argument for a walled-garden scenario but i certainly wouldn't just turn it over to local businesses, they will only use it for their own monopoly.
Rather we should view it like public-owned radio. Let business buy-in for adverts if it's absolutely necessary but it mightn't be.
We subsidize all kinds of stuff like traffic lights, pedestrain crossings.
I wonder if an audit has ever been done to see if motor tax actually covers the cost of construction and maintence on our road network.
I wouldn't be surprised if joe-public is subsidising it.

Tomas_V

RedPlanet wrote: »

I don't see why we shouldn't do it.
Such a move could really boost e-commerce and provide a sound base for technology companies setting up shop (or staying here); instead of leaving for India.

Wouldn't wired broadband be more appropriate for this?

At present, there's nothing to stop the private sector setting up hotspots around the city and operating whatever revenue model they want (including advertising-driven). I don't see why the City Council needs to compete with them.

Roads and public transport are directly related to the city they serve. Free WiFi is not.

sovtek

Tomas_V wrote: »

Wouldn't wired broadband be more appropriate for this?

At present, there's nothing to stop the private sector setting up hotspots around the city and operating whatever revenue model they want (including advertising-driven). I don't see why the City Council needs to compete with them.

Roads and public transport are directly related to the city they serve. Free WiFi is not.

It's not competing with them. It's providing a service for the public good instead of operating for a profit and only in that interest.
You don't think having internet access to inhabitants of a city is directly related to the city that it would be offered in? That seems self evident to me.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

That's not "anti-competitive". It's in the public interest.

I can think of lots of things that are in the public interest that I'd rather see government provide than free wireless access.

sovtek wrote: »

Those companies do not own the electromagnetic spectrum. We do!

Thought experiment for you. Put an FM antenna on your roof. Connect a transmitter to it. Broadcast whatever you like on a frequency of your choice between 88 and 102 MHz. What do you suppose happens next?

For bonus marks, try it a few MHz higher.

By the way, please keep this strictly as a thought experiment. I really, really don't recommend trying this at home.

sovtek wrote: »

It's like subsidizing a bus service for public transport.

No, it's like waiting until private companies have invested a fortune in buses, and then offering a free bus service.

portomar

the plan i originally heard about was for a network that would have too low a bandwith for anything other than web browsing and email viewing.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

Thought experiment for you. Put an FM antenna on your roof. Connect a transmitter to it. Broadcast whatever you like on a frequency of your choice between 88 and 102 MHz. What do you suppose happens next?

For bonus marks, try it a few MHz higher.

By the way, please keep this strictly as a thought experiment. I really, really don't recommend trying this at home.

What's your point? That's its regulated by the government in the public interest?

No, it's like waiting until private companies have invested a fortune in buses, and then offering a free bus service.

Just because some capitalists were expecting to get rich is no reason to hold off on something that greatly benefits the public as a whole. The internet infrastructure was largely borne by the taxpayer in the first place anyway.
Incidentally private bus companies receive subsidies as well.

Tomas_V

sovtek wrote: »

It's not competing with them. It's providing a service for the public good instead of operating for a profit and only in that interest.
You don't think having internet access to inhabitants of a city is directly related to the city that it would be offered in? That seems self evident to me.

Wouldn't that depend on the content that is offered? If it's unrestricted Internet access then it is competing with commercial services. The content that will be accessed will have little to do with any business or commercial activity that benefits the city.

People in Dublin do have Internet access, they pay for it. What's wrong with that?

Providing free access at libraries is a better way to bridge the digital divide.

RedPlanet

Tomas_V wrote: »

At present, there's nothing to stop the private sector setting up hotspots around the city and operating whatever revenue model they want (including advertising-driven). I don't see why the City Council needs to compete with them.

I thnk that's the similar argument people used when private motor cars were becoming accessible. In the end it was teh public taxpayer that built the roads that helped line the pockets of private industry.
Your line of argument would have it that the public shouldn't build the roads; rather let the owners of motor cars do it, adn those car and petrol companies.

Roads and public transport are directly related to the city they serve. Free WiFi is not.

I disagree that internet access is not directly related to the city it's in.
I think there exists potential here that is not necessarily realized in the present environment.
It reminds me when India invested very heavily in Fiber optic cables for high speed internet many years ago. It took nearly 10 years for that investment to flower.
I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then too.

Or should we just wait for the private sector to lay all the fiber optics?

sovtek

Tomas_V wrote: »

Wouldn't that depend on the content that is offered? If it's unrestricted Internet access then it is competing with commercial services.

So...if it benefits the public in general which it would obviously.

The content that will be accessed will have little to do with any business or commercial activity that benefits the city.

It benefits the citizens that inhabit the city.

People in Dublin do have Internet access, they pay for it. What's wrong with that?

Why should they have to?

Providing free access at libraries is a better way to bridge the digital divide.

How is just having free access at libraries a better way than actually making it free for all through out the city?