Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware IT

Verizon Pulling Plug on Free Wi-Fi in NYC 128

Posted by timothy from the how-much-of-a-loss-is-that-really dept.
Cashen writes "'Verizon Communications Inc. is turning off the free wireless Internet access it beams from New York City telephone booths for DSL subscribers who use laptops away from home or the office.' Full article here. Is it just a coincidence Verizon is expanding its EV-DO in New York at the same time? Guess we have to pay to play now ... The real question is, when is EV-DO coming to Michigan?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Pulling Plug on Free Wi-Fi in NYC More

Verizon Pulling Plug on Free Wi-Fi in NYC

Comments Filter:

  • When one door closes, another one opens (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Verizon is apparently giving people wireless modems/routers now, as I'm seeing them popping up all over my neighborhood. Most people don't know enough to secure them, and they're 802.11g, too!
  • So, there's no protection at all against signal problems if EV-DO runs on standard WiFi equipment. I wouldn't pay for that.

    Also, first post.

    • Re:WiFi runs on unlicensed spectrum (Score:4, Informative)

      by SilentSage ( 656382 ) * on Saturday April 30, 2005 @03:25PM (#12393324)
      I am a technical support coordinator for Verizon wireless. I can tell you that EV-DO uses a CDMA cellular signal for the entire EV-DO capable part of the Verizon network. CDMA networks operate at either 800 or 1900 mhz which is HIGHLY regulated (and costly) spectrum. EV-DO is not an 802.11 technology from our end but as with most ISP's what you do with your bandwidth once you get it is up to you. You can set it up with a Wi-Fi router on your end but then as with anything else you are responsible for the security of the network that you set up.

      • WiFi runs on free spectrum (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "You can set it up with a Wi-Fi router on your end but then as with anything else you are responsible for the security of the network that you set up."

        That and don't forget to pay the bill in a timely manner. The "community" would hate to see all that "free service" cut off.

  • so people will just hack the corperate/Home AP... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by johnjones ( 14274 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @02:28PM (#12393063) Homepage Journal
    people will just use the access points around...

    come on anyone who buys a router now gets wifi on it and they leave it open OR you just discover the keys and break in (yeah it takes a while but thats life)

    realistically wifi is here to stay and its kind of free (to those in the know)

    most of the students I know dont pay they just leach of others bandwidth or plug into uni...

    regards

    John Jones

  • Let 'em do what they want... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Saturday April 30, 2005 @02:29PM (#12393066) Homepage
    with their own gear.

    As far as I'm concerned, if it's their stuff, it's their call. I DO have an issue with their lobbyists getting legislation passed that forbids other people from doing the same thing.

    Take your trucks and go home, Verizon. Leave my toys alone.
    • In new york city free wifi for dsl customers was a MAJOR incentive to switch to Verizon. I was going to make the switch from roadrunner to verizon on Friday based on the wireless access point directly outside my bedroom window. Thankfuly I didn't have time, because this changes things. These access points are literally all over the place. Sure there are home networks around me, but the verizon access point has great signal!

  • the key phrase in the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danimrich ( 584138 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @02:36PM (#12393104) Homepage Journal
    The key phrase in the article is "better business model" = "way to make as much money as possible without being forced out of the market by competitors"
    • "better business model" = "way to make as much money as possible without being forced out of the market by competitors"

      Isn't that the very definition of a for-profit company?

      • No, but it's the defintion of a publicly traded for-profit company. As long as you're not public and your investors (if applicable) approve, you can be as charitable as you want, so long as you have enough cash on hand and are cash flow positive (or at least aren't bleeding red).

        As soon as a company goes public... all of a sudden, you are controlled by the greed of the stockholders and the board instead of a handful of owners. That's when companies are forced to try to screw^wcharge the customers as muc

        • the key phrase in the article-Money. (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "As soon as a company goes public... all of a sudden, you are controlled by the greed of the stockholders and the board instead of a handful of owners."

          That's why a smart owner remains a majority stockholder.

  • Confused .... (Score:5, Funny)

    by quick2think ( 833211 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @02:37PM (#12393110)
    How do you pull the plug on wireless?

  • When am I going to get free wireless? (Score:3, Funny)

    by CypherXero ( 798440 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @02:37PM (#12393111) Homepage
    "The real question is, when is EV-DO coming to michigan?"

    I live in Alabama, you insensitive clod!

  • The real question? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The real question is, when is EV-DO coming to michigan?

    Really? Since when would "stuff that matters" make it the "real question" when, or even if, an acronym for something that is for most both quite unimportant and uninteresting, reaches <insert place of choice>?

    That question instead got me thinking of a mouse running in its wheel, and perhaps it was thinking "I wonder when I reach the end".

  • Submitter, please RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rescate ( 688702 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @03:10PM (#12393261)
    Is it just a coincidence Verizon is expanding its EV-DO in New York at the same time?

    Obviously not, if you read the article in your own link.

    "A lot has changed over the past two years in terms of wireless access," said Henson. "Everybody's trying to look for a business model around (Wi-Fi).... But the better business model in our mind is the EV-DO network."

  • EVDO not that great (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1000baseFX ( 120418 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @03:15PM (#12393274)
    I work for a municipality in the Tampabay FL area. We are rolling out quite a few EVDO installs,
    and "per Verizon" we are one of their Bigger customers in this market.
    The area I'm in is "Very heavily covered" (per Verizon) for EVDO access which is the broadband side,
    and you automatically flip-dlop between that and the 1xRTT which is the "National Access" part of the system.
    The EVDO if your lucky gets you anywhere from 350 to 768kbps (Don't use the Venturi Client)
    while the 1xRTT drops you to 28,8 to 76kbps.
    For an area that is "Heavily covered" I have had nothing but trouble staying in the EVDO side consistently.
    However, If you need decent wireless connectivity because your on the road allot working from your car it
    is better than nothing. Just a little steep on the price for the quality of the service.
    I think that Verizon got a little ahead of themselves as they did when they first rolled out their DSL years ago.
    I had to teach their engineers how to configure that for this area as well, not to mention teach the linemen
    that bridge taps are bad as is fiber for DSL, but I digress

  • Never trust a company to provide a service (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @03:18PM (#12393287) Journal
    The city can provide for free.

    Now before everyone says it costs the city money, lets think about it. At City hall, you have a mayor you must pay anyways, the elected officials. And you have the city workers. So that cost is there regardless of what a city does.

    The added cost, of having someone set up the service, well, would it be more than a company? I don't think so. At least with a city, you won't have a CEO pulling in millions of dollars a year, will you? And with a city, you can protect the workers, they can't get fired. In a company, at the very exact moment a CEO gets a 10 million dollar bonus, he can lay off thousands of people to save the company a few million. Don't that seem a little dumb?

    Cities are the perfect provider for this service. For what a company will charge, a city can provide the service for pennies on the dollar. Just think about the economies of scale, a city getting the service costs reduced because of all the people, it is like buying bulk. It is the best value people can get.

    • It's not so much the cost that makes it wrong. The government should not be competing with what is potentially a brewing industry. Also, the government should not do it because the government has a tendency to do things wrong. If Verizon was your carrier and they were doing it wrong, you could stop supporting them. If it's the government, you're stuck with it.
      • Does this mean that Municipalities should stop providing sewer services, trash colection, electric service, telephone service
        propane or natural gas services, water services? Shall I go on?
        • In most cities I've lived in everything you mention except sewer services were provided by private parties. In fact, I've never heard of any city that provided municipal telephone or propane service, though I have occasionally heard of cities providing free or cheap steam as a byproduct of waste incineration.
      • It's not so much the cost that makes it wrong. The government should not be competing with what is potentially a brewing industry. Also, the government should not do it because the government has a tendency to do things wrong. If Verizon was your carrier and they were doing it wrong, you could stop supporting them. If it's the government, you're stuck with it.

        Then why have any public services? Why not do away with pulic libraries? We can let private buisnesses start libraries. Maybe they can provide a be

        • To paraphrase you:

          "Yeah, don't let people start private schools, how could they possibly ever improve on public schools! What are they gonna do, cut teachers and classrooms?!?"

          Of course, that leaves aside little facts like the private schools exist and are better for the kids than the public schools in the same areas....

          As for your FDR theories, those programs you tout were responsible for extending the depression [ucla.edu], not fixing it. If the USA collapses, it'll be because of socialist idiots who can't be bot
          • If the USA collapses, it'll be because of socialist idiots who can't be bothered to learn history or basic economics, yet still think they should make all the decisions for everyone else.

            Right. Because it was all those socialist idiots like FDR who caused the Great Depression, right? Oh wait...

            Your cognitive dissonance is profoundly disturbing. Uncontrolled and unregulated Capitalism is what caused the catastrophy to begin with and now you turn around and blame those who tried to repair the damage for not

            • Go back to the history books.

              "Uncontrolled and unregulated Capitalism is what caused the catastrophy"

              Government control and regulations, especially those regarding monopolies (establishing them, since big monopolies pretty much only happen and last when the government interferes to create them), securities regulation changes and credit/banking/monetary policies, are what caused the depression to start with. It was the first result of the U.S. Federal government deciding to really "control" the economy,
              • Has this research gained a lot of traction among economists, or is it merely the darling of the sorts of right-wingers who accept those studies which oppose government intervention? I don't doubt the researchers are trying to be honest, but unless you're an economist yourself it's arrogant to try and gauge the actual importance of their research.

                Central planning is generally pretty dumb, agreed. But as the science of economics advances, they've been getting better. Saying that central planning is do
              • Government control and regulations, especially those regarding monopolies (establishing them, since big monopolies pretty much only happen and last when the government interferes to create them), securities regulation changes and credit/banking/monetary policies, are what caused the depression to start with. It was the first result of the U.S. Federal government deciding to really "control" the economy, and failed miserably.

                Holy Cow! Where do you get such revisionist nonsense is beyond me. The stock market

                • You say you read the article, yet you continue with "Yes I did and no, it was not "a short-term problem" to begin with."

                  So let's grab a summary line from the article:

                  "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had
                  • Just to make the connection there for you, very rapid=short term.

                    And yes, for those others who didn't read the article, these conclusions are from a peer-reviewed article published for economic scholars by a team of respected economists at UCLA.

                    To kill two lies in one stone:

                    a) The braindead paper is a prime example of politically charged economic "pie in the sky" voodoo. The idiots focus on 1933 onwards, by which time 10,000 banks failed since the market crash in 1929, international trade fell by 2/

          • Private schools do exist, yes. But they don't have a mandate to serve every child. If a private school can deliver a cheaper education than a public school in the same area, it's partly because the private school doesn't have to take the costliest students.

            If I ran a private prison, but only took non-violent, white-collar criminals, I'm sure I could run a very cheap prison.

            If a private school can provide a certain number of kids with a better education, I'm not going to begrudge anyone who chooses
        • Why not do away with pulic libraries? We can let private buisnesses start libraries.

          At one time, private libraries were quite common. Some of the older ones still exist. I don't know why they faded away. Perhaps they just evolved to suit their customers needs and Blockbuster is the modern equivalent.
          • Blockbuster, Netflix, Seminar libraries, Law libraries, etc... are the modern equivalent. They mostly serve book niches or things like DVDs where current public libraries don't do a good job.

            As you say, most libraries started out a either private club-like affairs, off-shoots of print-shops (similar to a modern blockbuster) or charitable foundations started by private citizens.

            Over time, as governments started funding them, the percieved "need" for other people to do it went away and private organizations
            • As you say, most libraries started out a either private club-like affairs, off-shoots of print-shops (similar to a modern blockbuster) or charitable foundations started by private citizens.

              I wonder which of these categories the Great Library of Alexandria falls into...

              Planet Earth to Sharp'r: there are things that pre-date the US of A and (oh the horror of it!) even Capitalism! I know, unbelievable, but true.

              The concept of a library is linked to free dissemination of information, which scientists and sch

              • Well, a quick web search away, and we have your answer.

                Read through a history of libraries [buffalo.edu] and you'll notice that the vast majority of the earliest ones are private, not public. They record great private libraries being around for over a thousand years before the first public library in most places.

                The Library of Alexandria is noted as the first "research" library, about a thousand years after the first known libraries.

                Little definite is actually known about the library itself (not even it's exact locati
                • Read through a history of libraries and you'll notice that the vast majority of the earliest ones are private, not public.

                  Err, that depends what do you mean by "private". A King's or a feudal lord's library is not "private" because feudal lords=government in those times and access to scholars makes the libraries "public" (although they were clearly opened only to the upper echelons of society, peasants were too lowly to be called a "public").

                  Little definite is actually known about the library itself (not

      • If it's the government, you're stuck with it.

        I guess you don't vote, do you? If your democracy works, you're not stuck with anything.

        If Verizon was your carrier and they were doing it wrong, you could stop supporting them.

        Not if they have a monopoly. Well, you can, but it's easier to vote for your gov't to do the same thing. Verizon is supposed to represent its shareholders. Gov't officials are supposed to represent you.

        Also, the government should not do it because the government has a tendency to d

    • Never trust a slashdotter to provide a service (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "The city can provide for free."

      Well let's be blunt here.

      1-They don't call us taxpayers for nothing.

      2-Why should I pay for your* habit?

      *Yes, "your". I doubt you were really thinking of others when you made your suggestion on how "Other People's Money"(OPM) should be spent. Which interestingly enough is the exact mode of thinking most politicians use.
  • Is this supposed to shock anyone? A business charging money for a service is nothing new folks.

    If Verizon/TMobile/SBC/etc were smart though, they would bundle the services. Have DSL or Cell service and for an extra $5/$10 you get unlimited access to their APs and such. If they make you pay full like T-Mobile seems to, they're dumb.
    • If Verizon/TMobile/SBC/etc were smart though, they would bundle the services. Have DSL or Cell service and for an extra $5/$10 you get unlimited access to their APs and such. If they make you pay full like T-Mobile seems to, they're dumb.

      T-Mobile already has a discount like this. I have a T-mobile cell phone and for an extra $20 I get access to all the T-Mobile hot spots around the world, plus several other networks. An interesting point, though -- the price varies by what city your account is in. Add
      • $30/mo is the full price of contractual monthly service.

        I quickly went to their site and configured a phone using my Zip and the option to add it was not there. Their site about the hotspots did not include anything about bundling so I assumed it was not an option.

        I wonder if SBC does the same for Cingular customers. But then again the only SBC AP I know of is at Barnes & Noble which sucks here because it's between a bigger Borders store a block away and Borders Store #001 is nearby in the other direc
  • I think we're gona have to face it - affordable, flat-rate, decent quality wireless is not going to be a reality for a few years yet, but it will be eventually, just like DSL is today. We can speed it up by giving the ISPs/networks some demand and competition in the form of lots of free access points which will get people hooked on wireless net access - you couldn't imagine living somewhere today without a net connection, within 2 years you won't be able to imagine not having a portable net connection.

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

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      DSL is a dead-end technology. It depends on a copper pair from the phone to the CO. Fine for "old" neighborhoods that haven't yet been upgraded. The minute they rip the copper out and replace it with fiber to a local distribution unit, DSL dies.

      My current house has a fiber-to-copper distribution unit in an underground vault. For the 200+ homes served by it, it means at least 600 miles less copper wire between the vault and the CO. This is clearly the future for telephone service - until it is fiber to

      • Ok but you get my point: affordable wireless net connections in the future will be as essential as affordable home wired net connections are now. Well no I don't really want the governments internet access, I ment free as in just set up by random people around the city, although, considering the US has no data protection laws an ISP could get away with allot more monitoring of your connection than the government - at least the government is supposed to answer to someone.
      • "(Score:2, Informative) " WTF! Nice that a post that is 100%, totally and completely WRONG gets modded informative! Companies like verizon have been saying for years how "fiber to home" will make dsl faster than ever. They've even gone so far as to claim they will have 30Mbps speeds on it because of the fiber! Fiber to home does not mean your telephone is going to have an optical plug in the back of it. There's still going to be copper wiring IN THE HOUSES no matter how close they bring the fiber. Not to m
  • Is it just a coincidence Verizon is expanding its EV-DO in New York at the same time?

    I'm sorry, but when did verizon communications become verizon wireless? VZW is not Verizon Communications, and EvDO is a completely different technology than Wi-Fi. If you honestly think verizon is pulling the plug on free wi-fi (which btw, is only free for verizon online customers) and replacing it with another company's $80 wireless data service, you'll need to educate yourself a little. Call me crazy, but it just d
    • I'm sorry, but when did verizon communications become verizon wireless?

      Verizon owns 56% of Verizon Wireless.

      If you honestly think verizon is pulling the plug on free wi-fi (which btw, is only free for verizon online customers) and replacing it with another company's $80 wireless data service, you'll need to educate yourself a little

      Wrong. If you would have read the article, you would have learned that that's EXACTLY what Verizon is doing.

  • We had to pay to play with it bundled with DSL - WiFi was included with the fees, not "free". Verizon is just screwing up wireless the same way they screwed up ISDN/DSL. Engineers convinced them (as NYNEX) that they'd done 80% of the work to offer ISDN in digitizing the PSTN WANs. The marketers never got it (ISDN: "I Still Don't kNow"), couldn't sell it because it was slightly ahead of its time, and dropped it ASAP - in favor of DSL. Which took forever to even approximate getting right, partly because of th

  • It's being deployed now, expect this summer. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    But from what I hear, the Detroit rollout is pretty fucked, so expect the July light-up date to be pushed back until at least August.

    Here's a tip: In each market where Verizon deploys EV-DO, they leave each site turned on after testing, but set so that only techs can access it. They'd rather customers get no data at all, than spotty coverage on a not-up-yet network.

    Setting your card's "access overload class" higher than 9 should allow you to use the fledgling network. It should also make your traffic high
  • In the end, I think it will come down to Comcast Vs. Verizon. In the near future, they will both be able to offer the same services. It's just a matter of one or the other.

    This move by verizon however, makes me lean towards comcast. Verizon was on the bandwagon to prevent PA from implimenting free Wi-Fi (except in philadelphia) which is not very nice of them at all.

    Granted, comcast has done it's fair share of bad things. But I think verizon's greed is getting bigger, since they now charge more for my DSL.

  • Surprisingly (at least to me), the answer is yes. See http://www.ka9q.net/5220.html [ka9q.net].

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close