By silicon.com, 10 November 2005 10:40
Should the UK offer free wireless internet access everywhere and to everyone? If one council, such as Islington, can do it, should the rest of the councils - or central government - follow its lead?
By leapfrogging the wired internet service providers, everyone could have access to the web. Surely this would be better in the long run for the majority of businesses (rather than just ISPs) and for the public. And it would be a handy way deal with the digital divide.
On top of this, it could encourage the broader take up of all sorts of technology - giving the UK the competitive edge it lacks.
The danger is if we don't follow the free wireless model, we'll be stuck with high tariffs over wired services as big, old ISPs let new services trickle out over years to come - profit margins are higher that way.
The technology is already here to beat that but will it happen? It's unlikely considering the disjointed approach to all the UK's public sector technology.
There are some big arguments in the US at the moment with ISPs fighting with councils claiming they have undercut their business.
Who cares? The internet is for everyone, not just a tool to make money for some old boys.
The mayor of Taipei, the first city to blanket itself with Wi-Fi access, is now trying to cover the city with WiMax. Finland too has large areas covered with wireless connectivity. So why can't the UK do this?
If we did get free internet, what would the cabling companies say? Probably quite a lot but who would listen? What would the public say? "Free internet access great now I can cancel my £25 per month broadband account."
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. martyn
And we could also cancel our landlines at £30 a quarter which are only there to carry broadband
2. anonymous
POLITICIANS would get MY VOTE, internet for the masses not just for the rich to get richer
3. anonymous
Well thats a very 'nice utopian ideal' but the supplier of the ubiquitous free internet access would certainly be seeking to reclaim the costs one way or another and BT or other incumbant friend would inevitably be the supplier. The resulting homogeny of inadequate service provision would smother grassroot innovation and postpone progression to real broadband service. We want boundless exchange not more mindless dripfeed.
4. anonymous
Free internet access.. Yeah, the river thames is not wet..
It simply will not happen in the UK.
Big companies have far to much leverage with the government over the small person in the street. The companies will line the government/MPs pockets and the end user will be left with the bill for doing so.
Where there is profit to be made, then businesses in the UK will make it.
Examples, they have developed a light bulb that never wears out. Will not be implemented because the companies that manufacture bulbs would go out of business.
We have the technology to produce roads that do not wear out. Will not be implemented because the people who make tarmac and repair roads will go out of business.
We have a car tyre that does not wear out. Will not be implemented because the tyre manufacturers would go out of business.
We have the technology to implement free internet access for everyone. Will not be implemented because the ISPs would go out of business.
We have the capacity to produce cars that run on renewable fuels (tax free).. Enough said.
Consider me naive if you wish, but why do we need a modem, to transfer a digital signal to something else to put it back to a digital signal when all you need is a cable between two computers (namely a network cable).
5. anonymous
Free is great, free would be cool, but what level of service would you want or expect?
Could you seriously see IPTV delivered wirelessly? Can you rely on the connection to an access point?
What if people ditch their landlines (as mentioned here) in favour of VoIP? There have already been cases in the US where people have died because they could not get through to emergency services because of the expectations that VoIP gives.
It would effectively make the internet state controlled - a public service which itself would be subject to bureaucracy. legislation and control. Not to mention big brother style leaching of what each and everyone of us was doing on this "public network"...
Then there's the security issues. People woiuld need to be educated in firewalls, spyware, adware, zombies, etc. As well as knowing what the dangers are of sharing a drive or folder on a PC... The underworld would have a field day with this network...
People require the internet for different reasons. Gamers would not be happy in sharing the limited bandwidth on an access point for example.
On the plus side, it would mean that the internet would be available to all. If the service allowed limited functionality, web, e-mail, ftp etc. Services that would not cause trouble or inconvenience if they were temporarily down then why not. You don't need an 8Mb or even a 2Mb connection for these services.
People who want or need higher bandwidth should have the option of paying for it via an ISP but replacing the whole of the internet with a completely free service... I don't think so.
It is less recognised the cost the internet has on ISPs. The purchase of bandwidth to cover our increasing demands is not cheap. To enable millions of users to have a reasonable service requires a significant investment in bandwidth.
If these services are not capped or restricted then bandwidth use will spiral out of control and the network will eventually collapse as it becomes to expensive to operate.
Free internet? Yes please, but lets be realistic about what should be done with it...
6. Jay
Hell yea its gonna happen eventually anyway. just sounds too good to be true y'know?
7. Dr Isaac Okonedo
So, at last, also the Jericho wall and barrier on free access to useful information for all is beggining to fall thus opening the "information sans frontier" door to the rich and the poor. It will be the new era for a true democracy void of a pyramidal and hypocritical secrecy and control.