Slashdot Log In
Free Wi-fi Prompts BellSouth to Withdraw Donation
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:40 AM
from the a-bit-petty dept.
from the a-bit-petty dept.
turbosaab writes "Shortly after learning of the New Orleans plan for free city-wide wireless internet, Bellsouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate a damaged building to be used for police headquarters. According to the Washington Post, 'Bill Oliver, angrily rescinded the offer of the building in a conversation with New Orleans homeland security director Terry Ebbert.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
They may as well just strangle puppies in front of orphans. I'll never use thier services.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know how it is down South now with telcoms, but when I lived in Tennessee, BellSouth was the only option we had in terms of phone service.
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
(I lived 10 of my almost 19 years in such a place, so "backwater" isn't an insult).
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most college students I know only have cell phones or no phone at all (the latter being quite rare).
I know very few college students with a landline phone.
Now I do agree with the south not having alot of other options. Bellsouth is the defacto standard phone company if you want a landline down here. I mean sure, there are some other options, but who in the south is willing to pay a good bit more just to get away from one company? Not many.
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
You can often get a cellphone plan for $30/mo, and $50/mo will give you a pile of minutes and free long distance.... and the phone works practically anywhere.
Essentially, they're pricing themselves right out of business, as far as I can see.
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
< $60/month now buys:
Basic cable
2 regular phone lines
5 Mbit Broadband w/static IP (and choice from 4 bw providers)
I am of the opinion that other small towns should do the same, we had a big bond sale, laid the fiber, and forced the ruling (Mediacom) price gouger's rates down to something reasonable so they didn't get pushed out entirely.
So we aren't lining the pockets of Mediacom execs any longer, now we're treating ourselves.
I don't know how well this would work in a more corrupt (larger) governmental organization, but with proper oversight it's likely to be better than what you guys currently suffer under.
Parent
BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Informative)
BellSouth also loves to heap questionable charges on your bill. They charge $80 to transfer your number if you move, even though it takes all of five minutes and is done without the operator getting out of her chair.
When I moved from Atlanta, I canceled my BellSouth service. Three years later I got calls from debt collectors demanding payment for several months of service after I canceled it. I basically told them to fuck off, and never heard from them again. If they try to garnish my wages, I swear to God, I'll fly a jet into the BellSouth tower...
Parent
Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder BellSouth has that many damnaged buildings ready to donate.
Parent
Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Funny)
Ahem. Might want to post AC next time...
Parent
Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because I did not select a carrier, they actually charged me a FEE for NOT using a carrier!!!!
Charged if you do, charged if you don't...
Even the basic tax rules of the IRS are a bit more sensible...
Parent
Look at your bill closer (Score:4, Informative)
What they are probably charging you for is a Toll Restriction, which is usually extremely high, that costs about 2 - 10 dollars per month. It is an optional service and you can have it removed from your bill, unless you are receiving a handful of government benefits that require a toll restriction, in which-case, you be reimbursed for it anyway.
Parent
Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Informative)
Their system can and most likely does prioritize Bellsouth circuits higher than ITC/Deltacom, Sprint, MCI, or whatever other telecom you can think of. The how is easy. The why is obvious.
Parent
Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes. Orchestrated negligence is used as a business tactic all the time. Anyone on the inside who manages to figure it out is sternly instructed to get back to work, maybe even cited for insubordination.
Parent
Bell$outh (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my opinion that Bell$outh is actually worse than $BC, which is hard to believe.
I try my darnest to Not do business with either one of them (home & work). I actually prefer to pay more from a different provider just to incite competition and avoid those clowns.
There is No innovation from these Bozos. Missed the boat on VOIP. I mean look at Verizon they're working on fiber to the curb. Any how long are we going to have to pay a surchare for touch tone service? What a joke and rip-off.
I hate their support (1st level outsource). Here's a little secret when calling either one of these guys, if you select that it is a new install for DSLs (even though it is not) you always get US based personnel. T's, Frames, etc are not outsourced in my experience. But last time I had a Frame problem, it took hours to find anyone who even knew what Frame Relay was at $BC (actually I never did find anyone at $BC, pathetic).
Hate to say it, but I long for the day when both of these companies are out of business.
Parent
Re:Bell$outh (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Bell$outh (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry. There are rumors that both will be devoured by an up-and-comer called AT&T. Once that happens, everything will be much better...
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
They could just step in, buy the building, and give it to the city, with much praise coming from families and businesses who, as they move back, are going to be resubscribing to internet providers.
Of course, the whole thing would need some press coverage..
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
That said, at work when we switched from Bellsouth to another CLEC here, Bellsouth sent us a bill for $30,000 for "Unfulfilled Contract". That was all it showed, a line item for "Unfulfilled Contract" Cost $30,000. They could not produce a copy of the contract that we supposedly had not fulfilled. Needless to say, it did not get paid.
Reneging on their offer to house the NOPD just screams of a whiney corporation not getting their way. Jackasses!
Parent
Re: Scared for nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
In 2004 Pfizer [pfizer.com] withdrew funding from a New Zealand based cancer research centre over a dispute with Pharmac, the government (well, crown) entity that purchases pharmaceuticals for hospitals and health programmes. http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/articles
The people who run America's large corporations are by and large not nice people. (Yeah, that means you Mr. Niblack, and your fucking lawyers.)
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
So what am I missing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So what am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)
And it'll happen again. And again, and again, and again until we don't need cellphone companies, cable companies, or telephone companies. So far it hasn't worked on a massive scale - mostly because it was too much cost for too few to benefit. Its the biggest threat to these companies that there is.
Still, such a violent self-preserving always disturbs me. It's why I work at a small company myself. Too many people all working together mean that there's going to be power at the top. And if power doesn't corrupt, it certainly attacts the corrupted like a moth to flame.
Parent
They are probably really afraid (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So what am I missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Government control of internet access? the terrible possibilities resound in my head: censorship, digital rights, privacy, and reprisal. If government controls the internet access, what happens to people who are delinquent on their property taxes? Have outstanding parking tickets? Have a late library book? Whatever mistakes I may make, I don't think my line into the world should be on the chopping block, as a means of coercion. I'd prefer to confine my internet access to an organization whose job it is to provide it, not one whose job it might become to withold it, or use it against me.
Parent
Government budget != political abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
The way it works is that these services are managed not directly by politicians themselves, but by civil servants who are ultimately accountable to politicians, who are then ultimately accountable to the electorate. Because there is a public commitment that these services will be universally provided, and that no one can be excluded from them, there would be a public outcry if that were to happen, and that is why it doesn't happen. Governments work very well when the people do their job of holding governments accountable. It is mainly when people in government realise they will not be held accountable (for example, by an electorate which sees it as their 'patriotic duty' to support government policy whatever it may be) that government fails.
I imagine with wifi it would be quite easy to make a commitment not to exclude anyone. All you really have to do is allow anyone to access the network anonymously. If you're worried about government backtracking on this, well then it can be written into law which makes it harder for politicians to change, the same way the BBC charter is written into law.
Parent
Now we know just how much Bellsouth cares (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is basically, nada. It was all about what they could get out of it (good PR in this case). And as soon as it looked like New Orleans was going to do something that would make it harder for them to profit, poof goes the offer.
In response to Katrina (Score:5, Insightful)
That's Crappy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just crappy. Really.
Why do other countries have 25 mbit connections with cable for $20 a month and in the US we can't give a 512 kbit line for free while the city is a complete mess. And they can't provide more than 128 kbit after the city gets back to normal.
Not that anyone could use the wifi very much without power anyway, but thats another story.
Re:That's Crappy (Score:5, Insightful)
Other countries have faster connections for cheaper because they have competitive marketplaces, and their companies don't get away with insulting the citizens of a damaged city.
In other words, they have governments that look out for the interests of citizens rather than the interests of corporations.
Parent
Jumping to conclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Half way down the article, an actual source (Jeff Battcher) from Bell South is quoted as saying that they are suprised that the city officials would claim this, as they are still working out the terms of the building, and that the offer is still on the table.
On the other hand, the article claims that "city officials", no specific source, claims that Bell South is withdrawing the offer. Seems kind of fishy to me. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Re:Jumping to conclusions? (Score:5, Interesting)
I for one hope that the WiFi stays. I'll still pay for my Cox Communications cable modem for the faster speeds at home, but it would be nice to bring my laptop to the park and be able to get an internet connection there.
Parent
quid pro quo (Score:5, Interesting)
that's nothing.. (Score:5, Funny)
And the problem is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the story?
Seem to me that everyone wins.
The city isn't stuck pay to rehab a wrecked building, the cops, lacking a HQ, wouldn't be as efficient at coluding to be corrupt, a monopoly gets shafted, then outs themselves as greedy bastards, and the citizens get free WiFi!
What's the downside here?
PLEASE....! (Score:4, Informative)
Foolish on Bell South's part (Score:5, Interesting)
At first, this network would be used for intercity comm. As time went on, more ppl would head out to the net. In addition, as ppl came back and brought their own radios, there would be interference. So if end users want any real speed, they would have to pay for it. At first, it may be a higher speed access to the Internet (priority/total bandwidth), but it may also mean a DSL line. Finally, they could have instisted that Ray do a few ads for them saying that BS helped NO get back on their feet. Now, Ray will be talking, but it will be about somebody else and negative towards BS.
Man, these monopolies know how to shoot themselves in the foot.
Why is free wi-fi acceptable? (Score:4, Interesting)
And how can they afford the infrastructure necessary to provide wi-fi in the first place? Honest questions here, this particular aspect of Internet history has been bewildering me for many months now. I guess I just haven't read enough about it. Anyone with a better handle on this phenomenon care to comment?
I guess the last question would be, why are they doing it? Why aren't these places just relying on the open market to provide Internet access? (Let's ignore New Orleans for the moment.) Is it just to attract businesses and people to the area? What is the main purpose of a city going through all the trouble and expense of offering free wi-fi? What is the benefit to the city as a whole? I just don't get it.
Any insights would be appreciated.
Re:Why is free wi-fi acceptable? (Score:5, Insightful)
There exists no law or convention that forbids a government from entering a previously private market. Indeed, there exists a long history of the government taking control of markets that are deemed to be signifigant infrastructure points. That's why roads and schools are government owned and operated. That's why telecoms and power companies are so stringently leashed. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for the government to start waking up to the fact that we rely HEAVILY on the Internet as an infrastructure. You can expect increasingly strong government involvement in the control and deployment of the Internet going forward. Really, I can't argue the logic. If the Internet goes black, we are all screwed at this point, just as if the power or telephone system goes black. Business relies on the Internet far too much to ignore it.
It does take away any motive to pay for Internet access, right?
It does, yes. But there will be a market for premium internet service. I mean, if the local municipal maintains a 512k up/down pipe to each home or a WiMax blanket over the city, there will still be people who are willing to pay for more bandwidth. In fact, most businesses would still HAVE to pay for higher bandwidth. A company with even a moderately consistent bandwidth usage would want and need a thicker pipe. Some home users would want it as well. For the rest, yes, they could get by just fine on the 512k they are handed for free. That will shrink the market, or more specifically, it will tier the market. I don't see that as a bad thing. There are many people now who can't afford their own food, and therefore obviously have no Internet access, yet those same families suffer generationally because without the advantage of the Internet, they are finding it increasingly difficult to academically compete with those who are online...which makes the next generation more likely to be in the same economically disadvantaged position. This helps alleviate that inequity.
how can they afford the infrastructure necessary to provide wi-fi in the first place?
Taxes. Yeah, poorer municipalities won't be able to do it for a while, but richer ones will enter quicker becuase they have a stronger tax base. Those early adopters, just as with any market, will drive the price down by economies of scale. This will allow the poorer localities to enter the market sooner. And yes, the answer no politician will give you is that it's your taxes that will pay for it. Deal. Our taxes pay for all sorts of stuff, and as the economy rises overall (this is what it does in the U.S.) we will be able to do more with less. At first, the burden will be noticable, but over time it will not. The costs will decline, the infrastructure will be in place, the system will be simplified. This is the way of progress. No big deal. Municipal Internet will seem like a pain to us the first few years as kinks are worked out and costs slowly lower, but inside a decade it will be considered blunderingly obvious that we should have done it sooner. Think of what can be done with a TRULY ubiquitous network that everyone in the U.S. can access at will from anywhere. The uses are mindblowingly numerous. This is one of those things that can be a sea change if we let it.
What is the main purpose of a city going through all the trouble and expense of offering free wi-fi? What is the benefit to the city as a whole?
There is no one reason. There are so many that the real question is why would the citizenry fight it? For a tourist town, the early adopters can tout it as a way to boost touring revenue. "Come lounge on our sandy shores and SMS your friends back home from the comfort of your beach chair" More tourists means more tax revenue means less tax bruden on the locals means WiMax pays for itself and then some early on. For a business town it means touting a way t
Parent
Some Reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe I'm just completely "out of the loop" so to speak, but I really can't understand how all these cities can A) justify and B) afford to offer all this free wireless internet access.
In my city [fredericton.nb.ca] at least (we have had free 802.11g WiFi over large swaths of the city for two years now, and they are constantly expanding it), it is easy to justify.
As well, the city leases out the high speed fibre ring to companies, since they can do it cheaper than the local ISPs in many situations. Last I heard, the city was very well into the black on the whole project, it is far from a money-losing thing.
Being devil's advocate here ... how is it allowable for a city government to basically destroy the market for local Internet access? I mean, aren't the people who say it's illegal government competition basically correct? It does take away any motive to pay for Internet access, right?
Wrong. No company is going to depend on public WiFi for it's internet backbone. For one, performance is suceptible to the weather, and also the number of people on the local node. As well, it is inherently not as secure as a landline (since the access is free and public, there is no WEP involved). Also, anyone who is security conscious would not use it even for their day-to-day use.
But it is great for surfing the web, or doing company business over a VPN. Personally, I love it. And since it actually *makes* the city money, thus lowering my tax burden, I love it even more.
Parent
Re:Why is free wi-fi acceptable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, three points:
- The city can use wi-fi access for their own purposes, eg. law-enforcement and public-safety datalinks. It's not as if wide areas of wi-fi coverage are useless to the government.
- The public itself is looking for Internet access. It's not as if there's not a public demand for the service.
- Companies like BellSouth are not providing the service. In most of the areas where public wi-fi's being considered or actually deployed, the telcos that oppose it have also steadfastly declined to provide Internet service themselves because it's not profitable for them to do so.
To me #3 is the clincher. Saying the government shouldn't compete with private business is one thing, but when said private business won't provide a service what justification is there for preventing the government from stepping in given both public demand and government usefulness?Parent
Re:That was a mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That was a mistake... And perhaps ineffective (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about New Orleans is that they're basically starting from scratch in large parts of the city. They have to lay out new power and communications lines through large areas, and the incremental cost of an additional few strands of glass is nothing. They have to rebuild all of the traffic lights, street lights, etc. The real incremental cost of adding the infrastructure for the city-wide wifi is insignificant, and the other work needs to be done.
It has the benefit of getting people (and businesses) to come back. People that live there pay taxes. People that don't live there don't, at least not to the city. The city needs the tax base. I'm betting that someone pulled some numbers out of their arse, threw it in a spreadsheet, and showed a net fiscal gain for the city to install free wireless. Hell, they might even be right.
The key here is that it's nowhere near as expensive to install something like this for New Orleans as it would be for an undamaged city, perversely enough... just because of how much rebuilding will need to be done anyway. Best to rebuild it right.
Parent
Re:bell south sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Lots of customers are already on fiber to the curb, especially in Florida. It's speed capped at the NOC in software for competition reasons, and it costs the same as DSL currently, but they want everyone on fiber to the home in a few years.
Most of this is stuff you only know if you put 2 and 2 together, but it's obviously their plan.
Parent
Re:doesnt new orleans have bigger issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of copper is corroded. All the telephone building demark points were under water. Communications is essential to rebuilding. This is very true where the building is uninhabitable. Wireless is the way to go. This is part of dealing with the rebuilding. How long do you think it would take to replace every copper junction box, flooded trunk cable to the junction boxes in the city and all the demark points on the buildings. This is a quick way to get VOIP phones and Internet to the construction trailers.
Parent