[lbo-talk] Wi-Fi as "Dog Turd" Capitalism

Wojciech Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Fri Aug 1 08:59:58 PDT 2003



> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/69/32116.html
> > I owned a Wi-Fi PDA (alas it was stolen recently while on the
subway)
> > and was surprised at how few free/easy hotspots there are. Most
> > shocking was my trip to Seattle at the end of May (great town, but
not
> > much non Starbucks Wi-Fi--it was easier to find a good free/cheap
> > wired cafe than wireless). I found Wi-Fi in airports to be nearly
> > useless even in Boston, Seattle, and Chicago.
>
> Why is this surprising? Public Wi-Fi poses a direct threat to the
cable
> companies and telephone companies. Time-Warner and AT&T Broadband
have
> already banned pulic Wi-Fi interfaces to their network. They're
trying to
> strangle it in the cradle, but if the nascent WiFi movement makes any
> headway you can be certain that the Baby Bells and other carriers will
ban
> public WiFi connections from their networks. Otherwise you might have
an
> alternative, and free, network pop up in cities and they're
stranglehold
> on telecommunications would be no more.
>

Can anyone explain why it is so? To my luddite understanding of communication/computer technology, wireless connections are akin to multiple cable/electrical outlets, or for that matter, water faucets - they give access to multiple users at the same time, but they must be connected to the mains. And somebody has to pay for that connection. That someone can be either the users of the service (e.g as you pay for water or electricity used by your household) or a third party that uses the purchased access as a leverage to obtain something from the user (e.g. as advertisers pay for TV programming beamed to your living room). Of the two, I'd prefer the former, because it reduces the volume of commercial pollution.

Stated differently, I'd rather have a connection on the subscription basis, than one paid for by a third party and delivered to me "free" of charge, because the former allows a much greater end-user control. There is also a possibility that the third party in question is the government that represents bona fide public interest and uses taxes to finance it - which makes the latter a very attractive proposition due to the economies of scale - but unfortunately this country does not have such a government and is unlikely to have one in the foreseeable future. Ergo, subscription services are better than nominally "public" ones, at least in the US.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list