Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Businesses Government Hardware Politics

Free Wi-fi Prompts BellSouth to Withdraw Donation 479

Posted by Zonk 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 According to the Washington Post, 'Bill Oliver, angrily rescinded the offer of the building in a conversation with New Orleans homeland security director Terry Ebbert.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.

Free Wi-fi Prompts BellSouth to Withdraw Donation More

Free Wi-fi Prompts BellSouth to Withdraw Donation

Comments Filter:

  • Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScaryFroMan ( 901163 ) <scaryfroman&hotmail,com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:42AM (#14182779)
    I mean WOW. That's possibly the coldest, worst thing that I've ever heard a company to do. I mean Sony sucks because of the rootkit, and M$ is the spawn of satan, but never would they do something like that.

    They may as well just strangle puppies in front of orphans. I'll never use thier services.

    • Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)

      by spune ( 715782 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:05AM (#14182876)
      One word: Monopoly.

      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.
      • That must've sucked. Up here in Chicago, there has to be at least 4 or 5 major telcos, and dozens of mobile phone telcos.

    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:06AM (#14182879) Homepage Journal
      Well, the reality is that Sony never would have made the offer to begin with. But making and then withdrawing it certainly appears more evil. :)

    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

      by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:09AM (#14182893)
      Unfortunately, there are probably plenty of people who have BellSouth who can't switch away from it because they have no local alternatives. I don't have a landline (well, I do...but I don't know the number to it), but most non-college students need one. And VoIP isn't an option if you don't have highspeed access, even if you can call "normal" phones with it. And you do have highspeed, and its from Bell South, you can't really switch away from them unless you also have cable. A lot of you guys seem to be lucky enough to have broadband internet and multiple phone providers in your area. In some parts of the country, particularly "backwater" parts of the South, you don't have those kind of options.

      (I lived 10 of my almost 19 years in such a place, so "backwater" isn't an insult).

      • Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)

        by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:15AM (#14183126) Homepage
        On some phone networks, you can pick up a landline and dial "211" to have a voice system read back your phone number to you. I don't know if that still works, but it's worth a shot.

      • Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DarkTempes ( 822722 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:19AM (#14183312)
        No WAY a college student needs a landline.

        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.

        • Re:Wow. (Score:3, Informative)

          by FooAtWFU ( 699187 )
          College students generally have a phone line installed in the dorm. Typically, it's been installed a while, and the universities used to make enormous amounts of money off them. I've heard our own director of Information Systems tell about how they used to buy long distance in bulk at 13 cents a minute, resell it to students at 25 cents a minute, and they made millions every year. Now they buy for about 3, sell for 5, and make thousands. Still- for a college student living on campus, a landline where they d

      • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Malor ( 3658 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:35AM (#14183358) Journal
        In the South, it's often cheaper to just switch to 100% cellphone. Bellsouth's 'cheap' plans are on the order of $40/mo with all the taxes and surcharges and crap you have no choice but to take. (Coming from California, I was absolutely astonished at the cost of a phone here.. it was more like $12/mo for the cheapest options there.)

        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.

        • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mr_Perl ( 142164 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:47AM (#14185150) Homepage
          In Spencer IA where I moved a few years ago we have a municipal communications system.

          < $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.

    • BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:17AM (#14182927)
      You don't have much choice if you live in the Dirty South. Sure, the law requires they lease their lines to competitors... but if you try to get service from a competitor, BellSouth does everything they can to delay and interfere with it. A buddy of mine worked for a DSL provider in Atlanta, and they were run out of business because it literally took months to get BellSouth to do whatever they had to do to get a customer set up.

      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...

      • Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Funny)

        by jsse ( 254124 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:50AM (#14183052) Homepage Journal
        If they try to garnish my wages, I swear to God, I'll fly a jet into the BellSouth tower...

        No wonder BellSouth has that many damnaged buildings ready to donate.

      • Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Funny)

        by eh2o ( 471262 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:58AM (#14183093)
        I swear to God, I'll fly a jet into the BellSouth tower...

        Ahem. Might want to post AC next time... ;)

        • Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Funny)

          by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:26AM (#14183630)
          Nah, the FBI already has a file on me three feet thick. They've been reading my email for no particular reason since 2000 or earlier, and they know that if I were going to do something, I wouldn't talk about it, before or after. I just like to throw them a bone now and then... Are you reading this, Agent Summerville? I still have your business card. No, I still don't have anything to tell you.

      • ... but if you try to get service from a competitor, BellSouth does everything they can to delay and interfere with it.

        I don't agree with what BellSouth is doing; in fact, I dislike BellSouth a great deal. However, your statements are completely out of line- unless of course, you have some sort of proof. You've stated that BellSouth purposely delays and interferes with CLECs - now, aside from your friend's perception of his dealings with BellSouth, do you have any hard facts to back your claim?

        I don't

        • Baby Bells have been doing this ever since they were 'forced' to open their local lines to competitors. For a baby bell to transfer you over speedily and efficiently is the exception rather than the rule.

          We all know that the mainstream press is extremely selective in what it covers, and it's not even like this is breaking news. Common sense says that they will act like this.

          And it doesn't require the active knowledge and participation of the staff. Upper management can implement it themselves by assigning f

        • Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Honig the Apothecary ( 515163 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:56AM (#14183250)
          It is not a secret at all. Ask any lineman you see sitting at box by the road with a laptop; they do not respond as quickly to request that are on circuits serviced by competitors. I have seen it time and time again in dealing with Bellsouth in the last 10 years. I've had a service request for an Frame that required a "reset" of a card in a street-side box. The 1st time it was a Bellsouth circuit; took them literally 2 hours to get out, reset it, and have it back up. The 2nd time the parent company had switched the provider to a CLEC and for the EXACT SAME PROBLEM/RESOLUTION took 3 days. The lineman confirmed that it was the same problem it was 2 months earlier. Same lineman, same location, different service provider.

          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.

        • Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SilverspurG ( 844751 ) * on Monday December 05, 2005 @05:02AM (#14183431) Homepage Journal
          but orchestrated neglegence like that can't just happen without around 10,000 employees knowing about it.
          They may know about it but they don't know what it is. Take any task and divide it into its components. Then separate the authority for each of those components into a different department. Then surround each different department with paperwork which they use to charge for their hours or verify a work order. Then make the intersystem storage and communication of this paperwork a real PITA. 10000 workers see it as business as usual. On any given day you'll probably hear an employee of BellSouth (or any other company) swear something similar to,"This is the absolutely stupidest way to get this done. Why do they make us do this?"

          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.

      • Re:BellSouth has been known to suck. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by woolio ( 927141 ) * on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:20AM (#14183152) Journal
        When I was a BellSouth customer, I did not have any need of long-distance services...

        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...
        • Seems to be the norm. Qwest does the same thing. I actually broke into hysterical laughter when I called them to ask if they were serious.
          They claimed it was a fee to "block" LD on the line.
          I said, "Ok, I don't want a block."
          Response?
          "So which LD package would you like to sign up for?"
          "None"
          "So, that'll be a block then"
          "..."
          Just another reason I have a cell and cable internet...

        • Look at your bill closer (Score:4, Informative)

          by Mr. Arbusto ( 300950 ) <theprimechuck@NoSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:10AM (#14183288) Journal
          This isn't true. You can set yourself to be No Pic (10x1) for Long Distance. 10x1 means your calls are routed by which ever carriers equipment pics it up first, and isn't preset so they don't even guarantee you can make an LD call. The ILEC/CLEC can charge a one time Fee to change your pic, but they cannot charge you for having it set to 10x1 nor can they charge any surcharges like the National Access Fee.

          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.

    • Bell$outh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rodgster ( 671476 ) <rodgster@@@yahoo...com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:24AM (#14182952) Journal
      I've been a customer of Bell$outh, $BC and a few others.

      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.

      • Any how long are we going to have to pay a surchare for touch tone service?

        You have to pay for DTMF?

        And I thought Telstra [telstra.com] was bad. They do some crappy things [sourceforge.net] but not this.

      • Any how long are we going to have to pay a surchare for touch tone service?

        I fixed that problem myself. I put a rotary dial phone in and used it. When they updated the equipment, they asked when I would upgrade to touchtone. I knew legacy support cost them. I told them when it doesn't cost more. They dropped the charge and I switched over to DTMF. (this was quite a few years ago. Call them and ask why DTMF support costs extra. Don't take the it cost's more excuse. Point out the fact rotary support aft

      • Re:Bell$outh (Score:5, Funny)

        by osobear ( 761394 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:59AM (#14183257) Homepage
        Why are you u$ing a dollar $ign for the letter "s" in company name$? I$ it more $la$hdot-like? I$ it more bad-a$$, a$ it in$ult$ the companie$ them$elve$?

      • Re:Bell$outh (Score:5, Funny)

        by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @07:51AM (#14183830)
        Hate to say it, but I long for the day when both of these companies are out of business.

        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...

    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

      by SillySnake ( 727102 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:24AM (#14182953)
      This would be a prime time for Sony or M$ to step in and help their image.. Though, for the most part, both have positive images.. Maybe it would be better for the cable internet provider there, Cox/Comcast/Whoever..
      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..
      • Well that sort of assumes BellSouth would sell the building, which would be a strange move considering they are in the process of donating it to charity (don't rely on just the headline and RTFA, the offer is still on the table).
      • well... the whole point of BellSouth rescinding the offer in the first place is that with free wifi, many people will NOT be resubscribing for internet service...

    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Honig the Apothecary ( 515163 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:25AM (#14182954)
      I wish I could get rid of the $70 a month I pay them for home telecommunications extortion service (it barely qualifies as such). There are no other phone companies where I live in Alabama for home service.

      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!

      • 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.

        And so they get to write off $30,000 in unrecoverable recepits on their taxes. Schweet!

    • Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Luddite ( 808273 )
      >> M$ is the spawn of satan, but never would they do something like that.

      If nothing else, Microsoft understands public relations. In the same postion, they might want to do it, but would show better judgement I expect.

    • Re: Scared for nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:31AM (#14182984)
      This is ridiculous. What do they feel threatened by? Sure, citywide wi-fi might cause the loss of some customers, but it could have gained them many more. Does BellSouth have any idea what happened when coffee shops with free wi-fi started popping up in my neighborhood? I ordered DSL! After I had a taste of broadband, I realized I wasn't going to sit in a coffee shop all day long but and I no longer wanted to be limited by dialup in my own home any more so I decided to pay for it. Because it is unlikely a free wi-fi network's quality of service will match the quality of service of my own line running into my home. BellSouth could have used the citywide free wi-fi as a "gateway drug" to selling their own broadband service, but it looks like they just blew the opportunity. Boneheads.

      • Re: Scared for nothing. (Score:4, Informative)

        by vhogemann ( 797994 ) <victor AT hogemann DOT com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @05:06AM (#14183439) Homepage
        They don't want you to have Free-WiFi because once you have it, you won't want to pay for it.

        These companies see WiFi as another service they can charge you for, and all of those free hotspots spoils them a future revenue source.

        They're scared of the future, because the communication services are getting cheaper and cheaper. You don't have to spend that much bandwidth just to do voice communication, with all those bandwidth potential being laid over the planet it will be so cheap to do voice that some company might decide they can afford to give it away, for free, just for the sake of publicity. And once one company had done it, every other will have to do the same.

        Imagine a "free" cellphone network, where you just have to pay for the phone device. If whe switch over to VoIP this can be a reality... And of course if you're using a 100% digital network you just could offer free internet as well, only with a limited bandwidth.

        And I picture this for countries that have a private telecommunications network, on countries where the teles are owned by the governament this can happen even sooner.

    • Consider events from the viewpoint of the corporation you just maligned. Fairly or not, BellSouth offered a damaged building and in return, the government launched a taxpayer-funded program directly competing with BellSouth. In simpler terms, BellSouth was stabbed in the back. Given the action of the government, BellSouth's reaction is, although not exactly nice, is at least understandable on some level.

      Withdrawing the property was indeed petty. And as for "coldest, worst thing" a company has ever don

      • Consider events from the viewpoint of the corporation you just maligned. Fairly or not, BellSouth offered a damaged building and in return, the government launched a taxpayer-funded program directly competing with BellSouth

        It wasn't "in return", there was no linkage. If the only reason BS was offering their building (which was apparently damaged and useless to them anyway) was in expectation of preferential treatment, well screw them. It was a disaster, you don't offer aid and withdraw it if you don't get

    • Re:Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nwbvt ( 768631 )
      "That's possibly the coldest, worst thing that I've ever heard a company to do. "

      I'm sure there are many companies that never donated that amount of their company property in the first place. Does that make them any less cold than BellSouth?

      BTW, if you RTFA (I know, its /., almost no one gets past the sensationalist headlines), they did not say they would not donate the building, merely that they would have to "continue to work through issues regarding the building" after the city decided to create a m

      • Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by schon ( 31600 )
        I'm sure there are many companies that never donated that amount of their company property in the first place. Does that make them any less cold than BellSouth?

        Yes, it does.

        Consider your employer refusing to pay you one day. If they just claimed "well, none of the other companies in town are paying you either, so we're not any less cold than anyone else."

        They promised they would do something, then reneged. It *is* worse than not promising at all.

    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonbrewer ( 11894 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:55AM (#14183404) Homepage
      That's possibly the coldest, worst thing that I've ever heard a company to do.

      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/ 2004/05/0005.cfm [auckland.ac.nz]

      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.)

  • So what am I missing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pichu0102 ( 916292 ) <pichu0102@gmail.com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:43AM (#14182783) Homepage Journal
    Are they being jackasses and withdrawing their offer because they're not being used for the wifi or because they think if they city can afford wifi they can afford to buy the building from them? Either way, this is a seriously stupid PR move.
    • My guess is that they're upset because it means nobody will have any reason to purchase their DSL services, ISDN, and a LOT of lost revenue from phone service where people go to vonage.

    • Re:So what am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by srleffler ( 721400 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:48AM (#14182805)
      No, they are being jackasses because they are deadly afraid of municipalities implementing their own city-wide wireless internet. Other municipalities have tried to do this, and it scares the phone and cable companies silly, because if this is implemented nobody will need to pay them for internet access. Worse, with VOIP nobody may need to pay for phone service either. Municipal wireless internet equals an entire municipal market lost to the telecomm companies. They do not want this effort in New Orleans to succeed.

      • Re:So what am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <rustypNO@SPAMfreeshell.org> on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:21AM (#14182937) Homepage Journal
        Another thought is that as soon as it really takes hold in a major US city and it works, city planners the nation over will take note.

        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.

      • They are probably really afraid (Score:4, Interesting)

        by CupBeEmpty ( 720791 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:32AM (#14182990)
        That the government can offer a better service for free... with the kind of service I have gotten out of US telco's I can see why they can't sell their product. No one complains that we don't have private roads. Maybe internet service needs to be free. It is certainly becoming necessary to normal cultural development. So what happens is the government provides basic access and if you want faster then you pay. That will certainly put pressure on the market to fix the current state of insanity that is US internet services.

      • Re:So what am I missing? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by the_bahua ( 411625 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:32AM (#14183180) Homepage Journal
        I don't know, I think I'd prefer to get my internet access from a company that has a vested interest in providing a service for money, as opposed to a governmental body whose only motivation for uptime and happy users is ... what? I don't know.

        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.

        • Government budget != political abuse (Score:5, Insightful)

          by karzan ( 132637 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:53AM (#14183696)
          There are many, many cases of services that are answerable to and funded by a state and that are not subject to this kind of selective provision. Examples in the UK include the BBC and the NHS.

          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.

  • 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.

  • Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by P2PDaemon ( 723609 )
    Should we be surprised? It sure seems like a lot of big companies are having irrational knee-jerk reactions to a lot of things lately... I can see why they wouldn't be happy, but to "angrily" rescind a charitable offer to a pretty beaten up city that needs anything it can get? Sounds like a bad PR event for BellSouth.
    • This is the sort of thing governments remember. So when it comes to a random trial in the future, don't expect bell-south to be coming up aces.

  • In response to Katrina (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ookabooka ( 731013 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:46AM (#14182799)
    The article states that the Internet service is in response to hurricane Katrina, in an attempt to help speed recovery efforts. I can understand why BellSouth would be upset about this, being a taxpayer funded competition, but taking back your offer of a building to help rebuild the local law enforcement of a destroyed city. . . thats just a dick thing to do, shame on you BellSouth.

  • Why is this surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stickerboy ( 61554 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:49AM (#14182808) Homepage
    It's not like Louisiana has a sterling reputation for honesty and integrity in political dealings. I bet BellSouth was offering the building for "free" in the first place for some sort of inside deal in service or reconstruction.

    Then the city government starts talking about taking away the local broadband market, and you betcha that building suddenly has "issues needing to be worked through". Wink wink.

  • That's Crappy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MHZmaster ( 875950 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:51AM (#14182820)
    Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like not only was Bellsouth planning to donate a damaged building to the city, but now they're rescinding their offer.

    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)

      by paulproteus ( 112149 ) <slashdot@[ ]eesh.org ['ash' in gap]> on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:04AM (#14183107) Homepage
      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.


      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.

  • Jumping to conclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mdobossy ( 674488 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:53AM (#14182829)
    I'm not one to side with a "greedy" corperation, but this seems like a knee-jerk typical "stir the pot" title to me.

    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)

      by Flashbck ( 739237 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:34AM (#14182996)
      I'm from New Orleans and Bill Oliver used to be my neighbor. I knew this man for a few years and I do not believe that he would do such a thing. This is probably a case where the "city officials" are bending the truth a bit. Hell, I remember when I was in high school, I accudentally hit Mr. Oliver's car when I was in a rush to get to school. I knocked on his door to tell him about it and he just laughed it off and made some joke about how he had a dent there that he wanted to fix anyway. This supposed angry rescission of the offer is probably a case of Mr. Oliver telling the "city officials" that the building is not ready to be occupied yet and is being spun into something completely different to help int he acceptance of city-wide free WiFi.

      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.

    • I live in New Orleans (yes, right now!), so let me tell about how "the offer is still on the table," and hwo it'll all play out.

      1. NOLA announces the free WiFi.
      2. BellSouth exec gets pissed, and calls up the homeland security guy in NOLA and says, "if you do that, you can't have the building."
      3. NOLA officials 'leak' the story to the national press, and the story goes out.
      4. Low level exec gets called by a reporter and says, "well, I don't know why they're saying that."
      5. Fracas goes on for a few days/weeks with sniping b

  • quid pro quo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Petrox ( 525639 ) <pp502@n[ ]edu ['yu.' in gap]> on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:54AM (#14182831) Homepage
    Maybe the NOLA Police should also withdraw their civil protection of Bell South HQ in the city.</half-kidding>

  • that's nothing.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:55AM (#14182836)
    I saw Duane Ackerman (CEO of BellSouth) kicking a kitten last week.

  • And the problem is? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HexaByte ( 817350 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:56AM (#14182839)
    Let me get this straight: A company donates a damaged building that may cost millions to repair to be the headquarters of the most corrupt police department in the US, and then renigs when told that the city has plans to gut their DSL monopoly with free Wi-Fi?

    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?

  • Haven't they learned from their corporate brethren (Score:3, Funny)

    by numLocked ( 801188 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:16AM (#14182925) Homepage Journal
    This has 'backfire' written all over it.

  • Bad PR, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IntelliTubbie ( 29947 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:21AM (#14182936)
    Of course, everyone is all for rebuilding New Orleans. How could anyone, aside from a cold-blooded sociopath, be against it? But if you discovered that the government's idea of "rebuilding" is to turn a major part of your business into a government-owned monopoly -- and not only that, but they expected you to help them with this plan -- well, I think you'd be a bit miffed, too. I know that New Orleans' stated motive for "free" (TANSTAAFL) municipal WiFi is to stimulate business, but showing a penchant for nationalizing industries isn't exactly a great way to say, "Hey, Mr. CEO, bring your business to New Orleans!"

    Cheers,
    IT
    • I'm guessing the government wouldn't administer the WiFi themselves - there's probably a very happy telco out there somewhere looking to get a very fat contract. So while Bell South might be miffed, there's someone else who will be very happy. Of course, having a state-sponsored telco is a mite bad to free marketeers, but then, when was the last time telecommunications operated as a free market?
  • I guess Terry Ebbert doesn't know how to take a bribe!?!?!
  • So how long before the city declares the building blighted and takes it anyway via eminent domain?

  • Don't Burn Bridges (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@RABBIT ... minus herbivore> on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:55AM (#14183078) Homepage
    Whether this story is 100% accurate or not, it raises an important point for anybody in business. Do Not Burn Bridges. The guy you just called an asshole on the phone might be in a position to do you an important favor six months from now. Or not. Everybody has feelings, and some people have long memories and will delight in punishing or rewarding you for some little thing from the past.

    If the New Orleans city planners are thinking of setting up free WiFi, they certainly aren't going to change their minds and go begging Bell South to please let them use that building. If anything it will just make the city officials less inclined to listen to the offers [cough-bribes-cough] Bell South is probably right now trying to think up to convince them to rethink the thing.

  • Reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dysk ( 621566 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:03AM (#14183102)
    I'll engage in telco hating as much as the next person, but this act is completely within Bellsouth's rights. The city has declared themselves to be in direct competition with Bellsouth's business model, and naturally they're not going to do things which'll support it.

    The city is making a good decision by offering wifi service, but they also need to recognize that it'll make them some enemies.

    • BellSouth's push is for DSL, not WiFi. One gives you a reasonably reliable, dedicated line, while the other gives you mobility at the cost of reliability and speed. If BellSouth were actually building WiFi towers, you might have a case.

      Absent a contract, BellSouth has zero right to order particular behavior from another entity. Abusing their market position like that is one of the criteria of an illegal monopoly. Micro$haft got busted for doing that to some of their OEM's.

  • PLEASE....! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dr_Ish ( 639005 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @03:11AM (#14183121) Homepage
    I live in Louisiana, though I am not originally from here. The comments about the corruption in this State are not fair. The Feds want to deny us reasonable help, on the basis of such slander. Slashdot should be able to do better. Bellsouth are not exactly the most ethical company, especially when their monopolies are challenged. I refuse to do business with them, since before the Hurricanes. They seem to be acting badly again, so boycott them. However, please do not slander Louisiana. Remember, most of the 'hurricane relief' around here has been done by regular people helping others. The Feds have been useless. In a town a bit North of where I live a shelter had 3000 people in it at one point, with no government aid whatsoever. It was entirely supported by donations by locals. In the town of Lafayette, where I live, Bellsouth is fighting the local, city owned, utility system, because it wants to lay fiber to every home. The utility will do a better and cheaper job than Bellsouth, so Bellsouth are upset. So, feel free to be mean about Bellsouth, but do not slader Louisiana, unless you know what you are talking about. We are down, but do not deserve to be kicked. Kick Bellsouth and the moron in the Whitehouse and his useless cronies instead.

  • Foolish on Bell South's part (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:09AM (#14183283) Journal
    They are being incredibly stupid. First, these will need a backbone to support them. They could easily have won the contract. In addition, as part of that, they could then insist on 11B, rather than 11G. That means that each site gets at most 5.5 megs (just let one or two leechs on that) . Then limit how much bandwidth leaves the city for the free hook ups. With the city covered by "free wifi", it would have taken out any real compitition from WIFI providers.

    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)

    by RedBear ( 207369 ) <redbear@@@redbearnet...com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:26AM (#14183336) Homepage
    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. Being devil's advocate here, and ignoring the fact that BellSouth may be a corporation that everyone loves to hate, 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?

    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)

      by caudron ( 466327 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:30AM (#14184209) Homepage
      how is it allowable for a city government to basically destroy the market for local Internet access?

      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

    • Some Reasons (Score:5, Informative)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:32AM (#14184220)

      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.

      • The city installed lots of fibre in the late 90's to future infrastructure, and much of it was just lying there, dark. Why not light it up? This cost is minimal
      • The cost of installing all the WAP's is offset by how much the city itself uses it. For example, the whole downtown is blanketed, so parking meter attendants can easily upload their tickets into the main system. Lots of other city employees use it for other uses as well.
      • It attracts business and travellers to the area. Being able to sit at any coffee bar downtown and use free WiFi is a huge draw.

      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.

    • Re:Why is free wi-fi acceptable? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:59AM (#14185254) Homepage

      Well, three points:

      1. 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.
      2. The public itself is looking for Internet access. It's not as if there's not a public demand for the service.
      3. 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?

  • sources? sources? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MegaFur ( 79453 ) <.moc.nzz.ymok. .ta. .0dryw.> on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:09PM (#14185317) Journal
    I've been looking around, good ol' Google, and digg.com and all that. So far, the only source I find for this story is that one Washington Post article. I think the Post is a valid news source, but it would be nice to have more sources to back this story up because I think it's important.

    Anyone out there got more sources?

  • Part of the solution or part of the problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eagl ( 86459 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:07PM (#14187547) Journal
    In a disaster area, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. There are no bystanders. Bellsouth basically decided that they are not going to be part of the solution. There are plenty of other companies in the US that ARE willing to be part of not only the short-term solution but also the very long term solution, so good riddance. Lets hope they get out and stay out, and that the govt remembers what they did when it comes time to review contract bids in the future.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close