Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Chicago's chief technology officer announced yesterday that the city will seek bids from technology vendors for building out a city-wide wireless internet network, or "Wi-Fi," as the kids call it. The network would compete directly with cable, DSL, and cell phone based ISPs, who, if Chicagoist's personal experience is indicative of everyone else's, tend to take their customers for granted. A vendor-backed service would be similar to what Google has proposed in San Francisco, where they offered to foot the bill for a free Wi-Fi network citywide, as long as people don't mind looking at [more] ads while they surf.
But don't ditch your favorite coffee shop hotspots just yet. The plan has some major caveats. Some of our favorites from the Tribune article:
"While there are few concrete plans for how the system will operate and no guarantee it will ever be built..."
And
"'The city won't invest money or operate the service," said Chris O'Brien, Chicago's outgoing chief information officer. 'The service cannot be too expensive and must be universally available across the city.'"
So, as long as someone comes up with a plan, pays for it, operates it, and does it on the cheap, then the city is all for it. On that note then, Chicagoist would like to request bids for replacing all the CTA trains and buses with flying cars. We don't have any idea how to do it, we can't pay for it, and we won't help drive them. But as long as you can do it for the price of a chalupa, we're down.
Obviously we're all for free internet service everywhere, but we're not holding our breath either. There are just too many things that can go wrong with this plan and too many existing ISPs who will do everything they can to stop it. We'd love to be proven wrong though.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I don't think the article said anything about it being free, did it? I was under the impression that the vendor the city selected would charge for the service - I'm guessing with discounts for low-income users and free access for schools, libraries, parks etc.
Good point. I think I kind of assumed it was meant to be free because networks in other cities, like Austin or the proposed Google nework in SF, are free + advertising.
In that case, what would be a reasonable price for such a service?
I read some comments elsewhere about how this is a bad idea because then we get 'locked' into a particular technology (ie Wifi or even WiMax). I disagree, as part of the installation process would involve new infrastructure to handle the equipment. The equipment could then be upgraded as needed.
Re: Cost--has there been any thought to make this like a fee for water or gas--a utility cost, billed as such? Is that model even followed anywhere? And would prices differ for residents and businesses, and what kind of monopoly would a provider get--that is, how long, and under what terms?
Perhaps these are good questions for a Chicagoist reporter.
Better make sure you lock you laptop down tighter than Cameron's ass. Talk about a hackers delight!
Thad--that's exactly what I was thinking. If it's billed as a utility like power, gas, etc, then you get into that whole private company/public service, how much profit is too much profit thing.
It's a very complicated issue.
Actually there is already free WiFi in the City - every Chicago Public Library location has free WiFi... you don't even have to have a library card!
I never assumed the service would be free either. But I did assume it would probably cost less than what those bastards at SBC are charging me.
library...?? but I never want to leave my house!! ;)