« Disasters Real and Imagined |
Main
| Save Your Portfolio! »
The Right to Wi-Fi
Rhymes with Di-Fi
SAN FRANCISCO truly is The Special City. Not only has Mayor Gavin Newsom announced his plan for the city to provide free or cheap access to high-speed wireless Internet for all San Franciscans, he also has proclaimed Wi-Fi access a "fundamental right."
A fundamental right? I'm impressed. About one-quarter of the students in San Francisco Unified School District score at "below basic" or "far below basic" on state reading and writing tests. Those poor kids may not be able to read a book, they might not be able to afford a computer, but Newsom thinks they have a fundamental right to Wi-Fi. At least they can access free porn.
...
Sarcasm is the last refuge of columnists on deadline.
The budget woes of San Francisco and California public schools (and the student performance, to the extent that it tracks spending) aren't going to be alleviated by the presence or absence of free WiFi city-wide (assuming Google's proposal carries the day). And while some in San Francisco may be too poor to afford computers -- which run less than $100 used -- public libraries are still around for the time being.
But free Wi-Fi, which is to say, free Internet connectivity, should be seen as a "fundamental right." (A better term I think would be "fundamental service.") The information superhighway metaphor may be tired but it's accurate enough for this discussion. Just as real world commerce and communication is better served by freeways than toll roads, Internet commerce and communication is better served by free access (with allowance for higher cost, higher speed service).
Debra Saunder's column quotes Tom Hazlett of the Manhattan Institute with posing the rhetorical question, "Why would anybody build any telecommunications facility if the government is going to step in and provide people a government right to it?"
For an answer to that question, talk to the CEOs of FedEx, UPS, DHL, and Mailboxes Etc., which successfully compete with the government-sponsored postal system. Or ask any information industry company that packages and resells free government data (such as those in the weather industry).
The business model should not be selling access; it should be selling added value and services. If Metcalf's Law can be extended from network nodes to people, more people online is better for everyone.
2 Comments
"If Metcalf's Law can be extended from network nodes to people, more people online is better for everyone."
Metcalf's Law refers to nodes on a computer network. But people aren't nodes, and society isn't a computer network. Perhaps, Thomas, you're personally comfortable with the idea of being a "node" or a number or a cog, or any kind of abstraction or inanimate object.
But most people react very strongly against the idea.
As this appears to be your only justification for advocating Muni Wi-Fi, can you try and think a little harder and offer another?
October 20, 2005 11:09 AM
As Patrick McGoohan said in The Prisoner, I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, debriefed or numbered.
But your supposition that I'm comfortable with an authoritarian worldview because I likened Metcalf's Law to the network effect of bringing more people online through subsidized access seems…well, a bit of a stretch. You get points though for a good rhetorical feint.
Metaphorical comparisons are not the same as mathematical identities. I am not saying "people are nodes" or "society is a network." I do think, however, you can talk about people metaphorically, in the terms of network discourse, and have it be a cogent discussion, without necessarily dehumanizing people or indulging in crypto-fascism.
It's no doubt true that most people, myself included, would prefer not to be cogs. But I think it's equally true that most people would like subsidized WiFi.
I support the idea of municipal WiFi because the more people use the Internet, the more valuable it becomes. I support it because ubiquitous coverage is convenient. I support it because it removes an unnecessary barrier to enter the online world. I support it because I believe Internet connectivity should be seen as public infrastructure like the highway system.
That said, a lot depends on the actual implementation. If San Francisco accepts Google's proposal to provide WiFi access and it turns out that Google won't offerer neutral connectivity -- forcing users to use Google services in lieu of Yahoo ones, for example -- I would object to that.
Beyond that, as a general principle, I find the main argument mustered by opponents of municipal WiFi -- as exemplified by Hazlett's position above -- lacking. Businesses can and do compete with the government.
October 20, 2005 5:04 PM
Search
About
Categories
Archives
Syndication Feed