Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Orlando Cancels Free WiFi Project

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jun 22, 2005 08:36 PM
from the no-internet-for-you dept.
EvilStein writes "According to local news, the City of Orlando has cancelled the city WiFi project. The 6 month pilot program ran for 17 months instead of the planned 6, but in the end, it was costing the city too much money and very few people were using the service. Might other municipal WiFi projects go the same way?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:38PM (#12886351) Homepage Journal
    Someone tell them to stop, I'm in the middle of dow$£$"%[NO-CARRIER]
  • From the article: But city officials said that only about 27 people a day took advantage of the program -- not enough to justify the $1,800 the city paid every month for the service.

    Maybe naively I've been waiting for the propogation of wireless to be everywhere and always available and if not free, at least very inexpensive, and ubiquitous. The quote above snapped me back to reality. Sure wireless everywhere is the buzz these days, but how many people really need, or want it? I would venture even in the techno-elite slashdot crowd many wait for wireless everywhere but only a relatively modest subset of those would actually use it, and of all who use it, it would not likely be at great volumes everywhere (as in, that's kind of what it needs to be to sustain and maintain the infrastructure).

    Wireless internet isn't the same as cell phones in the sense that wireless access to the internet is nice, but doesn't drive communications as does telephony. Wireless internet access is a nicety but until wireless folds neatly into existing or expanding other necessary infrastructure (e.g., cell phone) I wouldn't be surprised to see other experimental free wireless internet sites suffer the same fate (really the question asked by the article).

    If a city as large as Orlando didn't sustain the experiment there are many other cities that would point to that as justification for not even bothering trying, at least not in the near future.

    (Doesn't mean I don't want it, just means it's too niche-y a market right now.)

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:52PM (#12886418) Homepage Journal
      I work at a software company as a developer. I have an Atlanta Bread right next to my office that has free wifi... I have never used it. Why? When I go to lunch I go to eat, talk with my wife, and just mellow out. Why would I want to surf the net at lunch?
      Why would I want to surf the net at a park?
      I used to think of all the cool things you could do with wifi everywhere but in reality I do not see all that much use for it.
      • I often find myself at Panera bread after work if I have an activity shortly afterwards, because I have time to kill, but not enough to drive home and then back across STL for my cooking class, dinner date, or whatever.
      • by deep44 (891922) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:35PM (#12886590)
        When I go to lunch I go to eat, talk with my wife, and just mellow out. Why would I want to surf the net at lunch? Why would I want to surf the net at a park?
        Most people wouldn't. The point is, why work from the office when you can work from the park? ..or a coffee shop? ..or _anywhere_ in the city of Orlando?

        When I was a kid, my parents bought their first cordless phone, replacing an old rotary phone in our living room. My Mom would always sit right next to the cordless basestation when she used it- not because she doubted the technology; it was just what she was accustomed to doing.

        I think you see my point. Orlando was just a little ahead of the curve on this one..
        • by Squareball (523165) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:53PM (#12886680)
          Actually I lived in Orlando for 15 years and I had no idea this even existed until reading about it on Slashdot... I'm not sure if that says more about the marketing of the service or about me as a person ;)

          Seriously, I asked a number of people I know in Orlando if they knew this was even there and they have all said no.
    • Excellent comments. However, it is very much a catch-22. I, for one, don't really have any wireless devices or plans to buy any soon. However, if wireless were available throughout my city, then this would change my decisions considerably. Suddenly, a wireless device is worth the money. I would probably buy a laptop and use wireless constantly (whereas for now I'm content using landline internet at various places).

      My point is that, unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires time for people to
    • by samtihen (798412) * on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:01PM (#12886459) Homepage
      Personally, I think the real problem is the availability of service in conjunction with the cost, rather than people's desire for it.

      At this point in time, small wireless network hotspots are not all that useful except in certain situations, such as your home, your office, or a type of business such as a fast food joint.

      WiMax (or an equivalent solution) is, of course, the only way that something like this will become effective. If user realizes that wireless access will be available ANYWHERE, not just some half block area, then more than 27 users will take advantage. Plus, when this happens, it will pave the way for VOIP services for mobile phones.

      I have yet to make up my mind if this is a service that should even be provided by the government. It may be better left to private organizations to ensure that the government does not restrict or monitor information across the network.
      • Bingo -- it's a matter of network effects. Hotspots are useful only for a small number of people who are willing and able to go to those hotspots to get their work done. Always-on, available-everywhere wifi (used in the generic sense, not meaning any specific flavor of 802.11) is useful to ... well ... everybody, because it encourages the adoption of the technology that makes it useful.

        Cell phones only became a universally accepted technology once coverage was good enough that you could be assured of getting a signal in just about any urban or suburban area, and most rural ones as well. Going a bit farther back, I believe the same is true of TV, and before that, radio. It would be absurd to look at a small-scale experiment like this and conclude "municipal wifi doesn't work."
    • by maggotty (206064) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:05PM (#12886472)
      Having personally experienced the wonderment of Orlando's failed municipal WIFI, I can personally say that it will not be missed. Connections were sub-2400-baud-modem speed if you could connect at all. If Orlando's experiment was the standard of municipal WIFI, it won't surprise me if all such experiments fail for general lack of interest.

      I hope this doesn't disuade other cities from trying public WIFI. It would be a shame if Orlando's poor implementation of a good idea might doomed municipal WIFI.

      On the other hand, perhaps Orlando is a bellweather of sorts. Municipal WIFI might fail for incompetence. On the other hand, without a municipality cluttering up the spectrum, interested residents of downtown Orlando might have the incentive to set up a cooperative ad hoc network. Er...right.
  • This is why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thelizman (304517) <hammerattack&yahoo,com> on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:39PM (#12886362) Homepage
    ...you let the free market handle these situations. A bunch of Government Beauracrats spent oodles of taxpayer dollars, and ran the project almost three times as long as promised, and the taxpayers basically got bupkis. Private industry knew better than to waste money there. OTOH, if I'm within spitting distance of Schlotskies in this town, I get free high-speed wifi.
  • Free WiFi? (Score:4, Funny)

    by kc32 (879357) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:45PM (#12886385)
    Screw WiFi, I want free fiber connections.
  • Vague Article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wbren (682133) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:47PM (#12886395) Homepage
    The article left me with a few questions, since I'm not an Orlando resident. Unfortunately I don't get "Local 6 News" up here in Massachusetts :-)
    • How much was the service advertised? I mean, besides the orange signs, did they make an effort to inform local businesses' employees of the free WiFi access? How about local shops, cafes, restaurants, etc.?
    • What made up the $1,800/month price tag? Was all of that put towards a dedicated line? Maybe they should have scaled down the bandwidth (and the price), increasing it as needed.
    • Why did the pilot program get extended in the first place? Did they simply hope more people would use it as time went on?
  • by toupsie (88295) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:47PM (#12886397) Homepage
    Why do taxpayers need to fund free WiFi when you can just get it from your neighbor's right out of the box, default install Linksys/Netgear/Airport router?
  • Understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by robpoe (578975) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:48PM (#12886404)
    I live in Kansas City. If the city put in free wireless in our downtown - nobody would use it. There's nothing in our down town to do .. after 5:00PM (except buy drugs, hookers, or be on a cleaning crew).

    A city running something like that would give me the willies anyway. Who's to say they wouldn't be monitoring every piece of information - and/or someone sitting there with AirSnort doing the same..
  • I live in Orlando... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xENoLocO (773565) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:52PM (#12886419) Homepage
    ... and I've never heard of this.

    Why not? I'm a technically inclined 20 something who would have used this, had I known about it.

    I think that is the real problem here. Their target demographic didnt even know about it!
  • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:54PM (#12886428)
    I'm always a little amazed that people will use the word "free" when they mean "taxpayer subsidized."
  • by chia_monkey (593501) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @08:59PM (#12886447) Journal
    Sounds great, doesn't it? Free WiFi for the entire city. No need to search for hotspots. No need to pay to surf while you're sipping your Starbucks coffee. But...realistically, who's going to use it? I'm a WiFi junkie and I keep forgetting about all these free WiFi initiatives. Also, we need to keep into consideration that first wee need a very mobile client base, people lugging around their laptops and then using them somewhere. When they do pull out their computers to work, it's usually at a hotel (which generally provides WiFi now) or at work (provided network) or at home (probably networked). I doubt anyone is going to cancel their Internet service at home simply because the city provides free WiFi. I'd much rather blame Comcast for a downed network than rely on the city. Like I said...it sounds great, but the logistics and cost of it all far outweigh the reality of the situation.
  • That's because... (Score:5, Informative)

    by whysanity (231556) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:02PM (#12886463) Homepage Journal
    ...I live in Orlando and I had no idea the pilot program was going on. You'd think they'd advertise it somewhere - maybe even at the local university [ucf.edu]. In fact, I don't know anyone that knew such a project was in place.
  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:10PM (#12886498)
    The internet is a great tool - a channel for almost unlimited forms of information. It's potential hasn't even begun to be tapped, despite the wonders we've already seen. But to see more potential, we need a lot more than just access - we need people with the time, interest and freedom to explore that potential.

    We don't see much of that anymore here in America. Few people have the time or interest to go beyond the mundane around them. The concept of progress has become the idea of people selling things to people, with little else involved. Science and education just aren't that important anymore, except for expanding markets.

    Am I surprised this experiment failed? No - who is going to have the time to use even free bandwidth to try something new? Not many people anymore. We're just not interested.

    That's not to say that it's a truly bleak picture - but we as a population do seem to be stuck waiting for progress to come to us, rather than going out and making the progress ourselves. We need science, social thought, meaningful public education, healthy debate and journalism, and a much greater interest in human progress.

    It's not about liberalism versus convervatism - it's about humanity doing something to make the world better, so it's not such a horrible place. It's about doing something to outpace the destruction we're causing, at least on some level. It's about seeing beyond dollars, and using our vast resources towards creating a future where we all know more, not just avoiding the terrors that will never stop coming in new forms.

    It's not experiments like these failing that we should be depressed about - it's that we have so very few experiments like them at all anymore (relative to population increase over time).

    Ryan Fenton
  • blah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Momoru (837801) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:21PM (#12886540) Homepage Journal
    I like how Government programs get cancelled due to initial lack of use....cancel the wifi, cancel the bus routes only a few people use....the government isn't a corporation, its there to help the people, not turn a profit. If only a few people were using a park would they pave it? If only a few people used the courts would they close them? Some things are just a public service, and WiFi is the public service of the 21st century.
    • Re:blah (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Have Blue (616) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:46PM (#12886640) Homepage
      Those government programs get cancelled because they are tremendously egregious wastes of money. Even governments can't subsidize forever; the bar is lower than it is for a for-profit business but even cities can go bankrupt if they run at a deficit for long enough.

      Face it, free wireless is neither a high priority nor a fundamental necessity of life to the vast majority of people, and that will be true for the foreseeable future. If it's really that important to you, you can get it from a commercial provider (at a cost, but hey, it's really that important, right?).
  • Scope (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sigma (53086) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @09:30PM (#12886571)
    Please don't get the impression that this was a city-wide project. In reality, the signal was only available over a few city blocks and one park in downtown Orlando.

    This failure is clearly because of a poor location choice. The main branch of the Orange County library is only a block away from Lake Eola park where this project was centered, but no signal was available in the library when I was there earlier this year.
  • by vsync64 (155958) <vsync@quadium.net> on Wednesday June 22 2005, @10:02PM (#12886719) Homepage
    I live in Orlando and on several occasions I tried to use the wireless service outside. I was unable to get a DHCP lease or even a very strong signal (this was right next to the sign proudly advertising the wireless). Then there are the homeless people that congregate in these parks. Finally the humidity is very bad. It wasn't even summer yet, but I was concerned that long term use might short out parts of my laptop. Plus it's not pleasant to sit outside and be hot and sweaty.

    I hope they didn't kill the wireless in the library downtown though; that works quite nicely and is a great benefit when visiting for relaxation or research.

  • Mickey Mouse Project (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday June 22 2005, @10:43PM (#12886875) Homepage Journal
    $1800:mo for 6 months pilot, extended to 17 months, means they planned to spend $10K, but spent $30K instead. For a system to support "up to 200 people at once" - which would have been $9:mo, just in costs, for a hotspot. That's not "municipal WiFi", that's a token gesture, doomed to fail.

    How much could they have spent getting people to know about the service, known to everyone in business as "marketing"? And with that kind of tiny coverage, what possibility could it have had to be meaningful as "citywide"? None at all. Philadelphia's project will cost over $10M, complete coverage for 1.5M people. And it will not just be some "hotspot startup", it will be a complete coverage, so people can forget about the network, and just get access to Internet content, services and people. That has a good chance of success.