Municipal Wi-Fi

Of course, in the US, the large internet and cellular providers are trying to get laws passed to block municipal wi-fi. That doesn't provide direct benefit to them; in most cases, the connectivity they block doesn't compete with existing internet service. But it protects them from possible unflattering comparisons between their service and the muni services.

Free WiFi ? Good.

Free WiFi required by coercive city government? Not good.

Perhaps Mr Ismail should direct his attention at more basic shortcomings, such as keeping restaurants from expanding onto public walkways and forcing pedestrians to walk in the busy streets.

@ Connect the Dots

Computers connected to an unsecured WiFi network are vulnerable to attack by any passing or lurking hacker. Computers that are permanently connected to the same one are even more vulnerable. Still, the majority of individuals who use or generate networks are very unlikely to be the victim of a serious crime.

Criminals are interested in profiting from their risks and the majority of what's on most computers is uninteresting to them because there isn't a good way to make money out of it. Add to this the safety provided by the crowd and it is possible to argue that unsecured WiFi isn't very likely to make you a victim.

Organised cyber crime does use unsecured wifi networks in the course of its work. Picking on punters in coffee shops or random freegans in the neighborhood isn't the reason for it though. Far more useful is that the police can't trace the source of malicious code or other sinister nastiness beyond the IP address of the unsecured network that it came from.

Amen to that! And what of bag-snitching? And evil thugs masquerading as taxi drivers targeting unsuspecting tourists? Also used tissues all over the floors? Looks like no amount of supersonic wifi could do enough justice for that, no?

I put a password on my wifi because having 10 other people on my network downloading movies really slows my connection down. If it didn't have any influence on performance, then I see no problem with having open networks everywhere. But in the totally open system proposed, those who use a ton of bandwidth are going to make routine Facebook-ing or reading The Economist near impossible for the rest.

A better idea is to offer a basic free wifi service citywide (with either a conservative monthly download limit or a speed limit) with the assumption that most people would pay for better service at their homes or workplaces.

Bandwidth isn't unlimited, there are physical constants to the system so every customer can't have 100 MB/s downloads all the time. If they want that, then they have to be expected to pay. I don't think it's unreasonable.

Wave Centre promises Free Internet. That's worth checking out. Wavetele.com is the website.

I like the approach taken in Malaysia.

All recreation and retail units with more than 80m^2 of floor space could be legally required to provide publicly accessible WLAN with an annually escalating minimum capacity (or pay an appropriate penalty).

This is an obvious strategy: the infrastructure to deliver this service already exists, and would cost very little to role out if led entirely by the private sector. The positive externalities would be enormous - for business, tourism and personal freedom.

Even bolder, and on a similar line to Connect The Dots' thinking, the government could impose a tax on secured WLAN networks, causing most private households to open their networks to public use. Such a change would also force providers to lift their download caps (downloads are not attributable to a user), and so charges would only relate to having a line.

To make this fair, we must meet Passy's proposal head on: there must be regulatory requirements for every building to contribute to a hard connection - a kind of digital license fee say, but with a market in which service provider you pay your fee to.

Just a couple of legal/ tax changes, and you could enjoy 15MB/s ubiquitous broadband in all urban parts of the UK (or indeed, across the EU and developed world) - with our current infrastructure, and at negligible cost to business.

There are nearly an infinite number of private WiFi transmitters.
You can get signal everywhere in every city, 24/7.
Unfortunately they are all secured, password protected and inaccessible to the public.

There is a fear of privacy breach and network invasion.
This is perpetuated by hardware providers, network providers and security software firms. They all want you to have a personal subscriber line and monthly 3G paid access.
WiFi is free, effective and un-meterable. Like clean water and sunshine. No one wants to pay 50 cents for five minutes.

This reminds me of the days of expensive cell phone minutes where people use to talk like Speedy Gonzalez to avoid high charges. Now we have unlimited worldwide free long distance--isn't that a whole lot better. Wifi is no different.

We do not trust each other and do not want strangers on our signal. And who wants a virus?

In truth, freeing your network does not breach your pc, won't steal your credit, and does not slow down your access speed.

The Golden Rule: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would surf the internet, then other men should even so surf your internet.
Jesus was a freegan nerd.

The Hippies were right. We need to have trust. And be generous.

Free your network. IT costs nothing and is invaluable to your neighbor. And one day you will also be that stranger in a foreign land in need of a little signal.
I consider this a random act of kindness and the world could use a lot more of it.

Change that security setting: Uncheck the Paranoid Box.

This is sticking it to the Man...they hate that. A Society where people trust each other and saves money collectively.

Next to Free Love, the next best thing is Free Internet.

A stranger is just a friend that you haven't Facebooked before.