Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware IT

Municipal Wi-Fi Networks in London, Alexandria 115

Posted by timothy from the too-late-for-sherlock-holmes dept.
xfletch writes "An famous London Street is now coverered by a free municipal wireless hotspot. Upper street in Islington is now one long Hotspot. The local council has set up this municipal Wi-Fi which they call the Technology Mile using cool-looking lampost-mounted access points [picture] at 200 metre intervals along the street, and the whole area is covered by free wireless internet, allowing users to sit in any of the area's numerous cafes or parks and access the internet. The scheme seems to be an extension of the Streetnet project, and requires a free login, and gives an hour's access before requiring you to login again. It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider." (Read more below.)

xfletch continues: "British press are reporting some objections raised by comercial Wi-Fi vendors, but conclude that in contrast to the U.S., where bills have been proposed in a dozen states that would forbid cities to offer Wi-Fi services to citizens on the grounds that government should not compete with private enterprise, we are unlikely to see such fireworks in the UK. Apologies for the camera-phone quality photos -- I will take better ones next time I have my digital camera with me."

Not quite as large, but closer to home for many readers, brokencomputer writes "According to a Washington Post article, 'This week, Alexandria began providing free wireless Internet access in its historic center, the first local government to offer alfresco Web surfing at no charge. The system, which relies on broadcasting equipment atop City Hall, the Torpedo Factory and a couple of utility poles, is aimed at outdoor cafe patrons or people who prefer parks to workstations, city officials said.' Interestingly enough, the article states that Verizon, which is the dominant high speed internet provider in the area, is not objecting to the city's plan."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Municipal Wi-Fi Networks in London, Alexandria More

Municipal Wi-Fi Networks in London, Alexandria

Comments Filter:

  • A bit evil, really... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Huge Pi Removal ( 188591 ) * <oliver+slashdot@watershed.co.uk> on Saturday June 11, 2005 @01:57PM (#12790024) Homepage
    Streenet networks are a bit evil - round each lamppost they have 3 APs: one to transmit back to the previous lamppost, one to receive from the next lamppost, and one to actually provide the wireless at that point. This means that the wireless channels near to a streetnet network are pretty much totally swamped, and you tend to get a lot of interference.

    They're also a bit evil because Streetnet appears to be an offshoot of a project that was initially helped by Mobile Bristol (http://www.mobilebristol.co.uk/ [mobilebristol.co.uk] who funded and encouraged them, but they've never publicly acknowledged their help.

    Municipal wifi is no bad thing, of course, but sometimes it's much better when done by independent volunteers such as http://www.eastonwireless.net/ [eastonwireless.net] rather than private companies who woo the local technically-naive council...

  • internet-only? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RandyOo ( 61821 ) * on Saturday June 11, 2005 @01:58PM (#12790029) Homepage
    It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider."

    Since when is internet==port 80 www? I understand that they only provide web access, and that's fine... But "internet-only" doesn't really mean anything!

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ^DA ( 82715 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:01PM (#12790045)
    It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider.

    Funny, I've always been under the impression that email is part of the internet...maybe I'm wrong

    • Maybe he's still using UUCP only?

    • Even if you have an IPv4 address, you don't necessarily have an e-mail address.

      • No, but if you are sending e-mail to someone on a different network from you, you are using the Internet. And since individual networks have now almost universally adopted Internet protocols, even on a local network you are sending mail as if it were on the Internet.

  • http != the internet (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:01PM (#12790046)
    I'm sure this will be redundant as soon as I post it, but the HTTP is what enables web page browsing. The Internet is the entire network, hardware, software, and protocals.
    • No, great description. Been tussling about best way to ask, and answer, this Q (Web isn't the whole of the Internet) with various (understand-Internet) mates. Your description wins. I changed my sig cos it's good. Not redundant. No special-sauce insight, but a great way of putting it.

      Nice one.
      • just read +11Informative AC.

        Yeah, we all know why the Internet isn't just port 80.

        But the poster's post explained how the Internet and Web are different in a way that people who don't know will understand.

        this is hard.

        He did it well.

  • This is hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:02PM (#12790052)
    It's an 'internet only' service, but you have to access your email through a www interface...

    Sounds how much that PR guy knows about it.. pretty much the problem in general
  • A government subsidized network means no longer walking around the streets untill you find an unsecured network, just because you can't be arsed to spend the 5 minutes it takes to get through WEP.

    So I get's it's some advancement.
  • If municipal WiFi is possible, does any municipal council provide free internet access by wire within its perimeters? I do understand free hotspots by coffee shops (and the like); the reason seemingly promotional. If there is a nice and balanced way for citizens to get their net access this way as a basic service, instead of through a commercial network service provider it might be a great thing for the 'developing' nations. Do people see something nice out of it or is it just "socialism"?

    • Yes (Score:1)

      by vrimj ( 750402 )
      I was raised on free municipal internet. http://www.tfn.net/ [tfn.net] It was not seen as a problem because it was actully a seperate orgnization that just got grants from the city and county.
  • "...and the whole area is covered by free wireless internet"

    Free? so the council isn't paying for it?

    Oh - you mean the council *is* paying for it. So that means it's being paid for by tax.

    So...let's get the right; the council has said "we're going to charge you money and provide WiFi and if you don't like what we offer, well that's just too bad - you can pay a second time for a commerical provider (if one dares to come along, given they know that to use their service you'll be paying twice)."

    Oh...and

    • Re:Free my big fat ass (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robdavy ( 850571 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:18PM (#12790130) Homepage
      "No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on. I'd like them to do that as little as possible, because, frankly, I think they don't do a very good job - people are never as diligent or efficient as spending *other* people's money as they are at spending their own."

      I don't know where you're from (I won't speculate), but in the UK, our Council's (local government) spends a lot of money on various community projects, that maybe effect a few hundred people, and are sometimes of questionable benefit, but they still happen, because they enhance the overall social landscape.

      This is a perfectly fine thing to do. The project above maybe cost £50,000 (?) to do, which in the grand scheme is almost nothing.

      If the local council had spent that money, say, renovating a lock on a canal way, would you be moaning? It would probably have cost more, and would effect a similiar number of people.
      My town has a "Museum" (in the loosest of terms). Is it the best use of the council's money? Probably not, but in the grand scheme of their budget, it's a good thing.

      My point is, local government spending a tiny (relatively) ammount of money on something that is not their "core" role is not wrong - it helps make things interesting. Just think of all the non-core things your local government has done recently (think events, renovations, etc).

    • Re:Free my big fat ass (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raju1kabir ( 251972 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:33PM (#12790208) Homepage
      No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on.

      You must have burst a blood vessel when you discovered the municipal water company bought new potted plants for their lobby without your permission.

      This (free wifi in public spaces paid out of my taxes) is exactly the sort of thing I want the government doing more of. It costs me almost nothing and gets people out of their houses. It's genius policy.

      So...let's get the right; the council has said "we're going to charge you money and provide WiFi and if you don't like what we offer, well that's just too bad - you can pay a second time for a commerical provider (if one dares to come along, given they know that to use their service you'll be paying twice)."

      Twice schmice. Get real; this will cost me a penny a year. A competing commercial service will cost actual money.

    • Re:Free my big fat ass (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      some countries political systems actually help their citizens
      but thats something you wouldnt know much about

    • -1 Flamebait from +2?

      I'm quite serious about the economic and political issues. You may not *like* what I write; ./ is notoriously left-wing - but flamebait is *not* an appropriate description.

      --
      Toby

    • Re:Free my big fat ass (Score:4, Informative)

      by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:45PM (#12790274)

      Oh...and it's a State run service. So it's not going to be particularly resistant to things like, say, intelligence service requests for private user information, because it's the State which provides most of the money which the council runs on. Such things aren't likely I'd say to be *overtly* used to influence behaviour in such cases, but you know as well as I do it has a significant influence and is most certainly a conflict of interest - where the people who might ask for information just happen to also be rather closely involved with the people who give you funding.

      In the UK our personal data is 'protected' by the Data Protection Act, which puts stiff limits on what can be done with our personal data. However, recently diabolical measures were bought in in the name of 'anti-terrorism' which defanged the act somewhat and hugely increased the amount to which government departments can share our data.

      So yes, they probably can now share information with the police and other agencies about users, but it won't be some back-handed thing. They've been given that power explicitly by the government.
      • Not only that, but the US Government (i.e., the FBI and Department of Homeland Security) are exempted from EU data protection legislation, and have direct access to such information on any UK government system. Which, of course, they need, because of all the radicalised Muslims in the UK who may support al-Qaeda, and they promise not to abuse, so that's OK.
    • In that case why not apply the same thing to all aspects of service - in this day and age we don't need blanket charges we can easily tag everyone and everything and charge people only for what they use and the government doesn't even need to be involved - walk through a park? the company that owns it will detect this and automatically take a micropayment. Have a drink at the fountain? you'll get charged by the millilitre from xyz water-company, even for the water you squirted at your friend.

      Actually in th
    • And this public Wi-Fi is different than a park that you aren't compelled to visit, a sculpture you aren't forced to admire, a library book you aren't cajoled to read, a public pool you don't soak in, or a bikeway you don't cruise, how?

      No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on.

      Actually, it is the same to me, because I couldn't care less what your local government does with
    • everything costs money. or nearly etc. however, using tax money for providing public services is a good thing. it needs a lot of thinking, balancing, discussing about what is good - but a good government (municipial, state, country) does a good job, not when keeping taxes low but when spreading the collected money in a good way, and with as smalla bureaucratic overhead as possible (always too much, but ...). that is one of the reasons why european cities generally look and feel much more comfortable than

  • HTTP only != Internet only (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MooseGuy529 ( 578473 ) <i58ht6b02.sneakemail@com> on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:15PM (#12790108) Homepage Journal
    It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider.

    No. You mean that it has a crappy, overrestrictive firewall that allows access only to the few ports required for HTTP access to web sites. Internet-only would simply suggest that it doesn't allow access to other networks, such as LAN's. Don't get the two mixed up.

    I really wish people would stop putting in neutered, free "Internet" access. I use the BPL [bpl.org], and their system allows full access to anything on their LAN, but allows only ports 80 (HTTP), 443 (HTTPS), and 53 (SMB!) to the outside world. I asked, and they said the reason they restricted it was that a lot of people liked to come in and screw around with it. The answer to that would seem to be restricting access to the *local* network, and allowing full Internet access, not the other way around! It's a pain in the ass to be able to browse the web but not use IMAP, SSH, or anything other than what the dumb 90% of the population thinks is "teh intarweb".

    • 53 is DNS, not SMB, though SMB can make use of DNS services. But that's pretty certainly going to have to be let through for anything at all to work.
      But without having delved into any TFAs yet, it sounds to me like it just means they don't provide any mail servers for you, not that they necessarily restrict access to some ports (whether by whitelist or blacklist). I suppose they might block port 25, to keep from becoming a spam nuisance. Maybe I'll check and see exactly what TFAs say.
    • If they allow port 443 (even via a proxy) you can use ssh. Simply set a remote SSH server up that listens on port 443, and:

      ssh user@host -p 443

      If it goes via a proxy, you'll need to set up a small program that does the HTTP CONNECT to your ssh server, and then have your ssh client talk to the local program. If you're using an SSH client such as PuTTY, this provides SSH access via proxy, and can do so by many methods, not just HTTP CONNECT on port 443. PuTTY, incidentally, can also act as a local SOCKS pro

      • Umm... for that matter, why not set up an SSH server using port 80, since you know they let that through? There's nothing "magic" about the number 443 that makes its traffic encrypted, or about the number 80 that makes its traffic unencrypted.

        As long as you have enough servers of your own you can set up any service you want over port 80: POP, SMTP, HTTPS, DNS, SMB, VNC, X11, blah, blah, blah.

        • If they have configured their proxy to not allow HTTP CONNECT work on port 80, it won't work. However, since HTTPS always requires HTTP CONNECT to be available from a proxy, it's guaranteed to work.

    • A few corrections...

      Yeah, 53 is DNS, not SAMBA... It listed as "domain" in nmap and I erroneously assumed it was "windows domain controller"-type stuff and that DNS would be called simply "dns". I don't know why they allow DNS to the internet, though, because when you connect, it sets their DNS server using DHCP.

      I don't have anything running on port 443 now, so I might run a proxy. Any recommendations? Any sort of tunnelling/VPN thing that's easy to set up?

      • I don't know why they allow DNS to the internet, though, because when you connect, it sets their DNS server using DHCP.

        Port 53 is the outgoing port your computer uses (by default) to query a DNS server. Even if you accept their DNS servers from the DHCP server you still have to talk to them to resolve addresses. So, they have to allow port 53 out (unless there are DNS servers on the same networks as the wifi clients, which is not likely).

        • They allow unrestricted access to their entire LAN, which I believe includes the DNS server. What's weird is that they're picky about security on the Internet connection but downright careless about security on the local side. (I became the Samba master browser with little effort, and everything is unrestricted...) I would expect the opposite.

  • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Monitoring (Score:2, Insightful)

    by big water ( 866921 )
    Someone may have mentioned this already, but what is the council there doing to monitor what websites people see and what they do (such as filesharing, p0rn etc)? Britain doesn't have the best record on privacy.

  • What "Internet Only" Means (Score:3, Informative)

    by kmactane ( 18359 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:40PM (#12790244) Homepage

    "It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider."

    Well, if it's really "Internet only", then there's nothing to worry about. I can use POP on port 110, or IMAP on port 143, to check my email. Then I can send it using SMTP to port 25 on my mail server.

    Or I could just SSH to port 22 of my server and read my mail on the command line, if I have a shell account. (Which I personally do, along with, I'm sure, many others here.) Ports 22, 25, 110, 143, and their related protocols are all well-established parts of the Internet; heck, at least two of them predate that newfangled port-80 contraption.

    Or did you perhaps mean that it's Web only? Slashdot is the last place I thought I'd ever have to point out: the Web != the Internet.

    • Or I could just SSH to port 22 of my server

      I have an ssh server on my home machine set up to answer on port 80, and accessible via a dyndns.org hostname. I have no need of a locally-hosted web server, so I don't miss using up 80 for something else. From there, I have a variety of options including opening up tunnels to a squid proxy.

      All works like a charm, and it's set up for exactly reasons like this one. Can even be tunnelled over http to cope with proxies or packet-aware firewalls.

      Cheers,
      Ian

  • Enhancing an already attractive street (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lurks ( 526137 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @02:44PM (#12790260) Homepage
    It seems to falls to me to say something other than the standard slashdot paranoid naysaying.

    Upper Street is a very nice place and it's packed with an unfeasibly large number bars and restaurants, much of which are spilling out onto the pavement (sidewalk for Americans) at this time of year.

    I can think of no better place than to have wifi access for free. It makes Upper street quite an attractive weekend haunt for me now as well as being a damn near perfect location for informal business meetings. Hooray!

    I think this is a genuinely good thing for the area and it's heartening to see a council give something back for our ever-soaring rates. Of course I do wonder if some of the businesses wont start getting a little annoyed by the wifi camper syndrome - Eg someone who takes up a table and chair and sits on a coffee for 2 hours.

    I guess the bars and restaurants will have to find ways of dealing with that too.

  • It is internet only, so email needs to be via a web-based provider. I think you mean web only.

  • "Private" Streetlamp Wi-Fi Networks (Score:3, Informative)

    by lxt ( 724570 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @03:21PM (#12790468) Journal
    I live in the UK, in Bristol (a largish city south of London) - and we too have these street mounted wi-fi boxes. Judging from the picture, they look like they're the same model too.

    However, there's one important difference - ours are for use solely by the council, primarily traffic wardens, and are completely closed. I have a sneaking feeling they're also something to do with the multitude of street CCTV cameras that went up at the same time, but maybe not. Don't know whether they'd ever consider opening them up, but it's by no means unique.

  • Pornography complaints? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bill Walker ( 835082 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @03:25PM (#12790482)
    So how long will it take before someone complains about being taxed to provide free porn and hate speech to children? Will the government be forced to censor the service it provides?

    Not so sure about London, but this would definitely come up in Alexandria. I can just hear the professionally outraged journalists on News at Eleven now...

    • The tabloids will surely pick it up and run with it when there is a shortage of other sensational news.

      Then again. the British tabloids also run pictures of naked women on page 3, so they may not go as far with it as they would in the US Red States.
  • I wonder how the residents feel about the council microwaving them. Ok, I know it's bollocks but I'd bet they don't know what those little pods are for.

    • Might anyone know how many different phone companies a particular zone (of a WiMax-covered area) could sustain, technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) speaking? For more info. on WiMax, here are some sites: WiMax.com WiMaxxed.com Intel.com (Rosedale chip) Nokia.com (just teamed up with Intel yesterday)
  • London Street is now coverered by a free municipal wireless hotspot
    the first local government to offer alfresco Web surfing at no charge.
    With respect to "free" stuff from the government:

    Bear in mind that governments do not produce anything. They can only take from some people and give to others (Usually through taxation). NOTHING a goverment produces is "free"!

  • Dont park your car to use your laptop

    In this part of the world, cameras with telephoto lenses are used to send you parking tickets by mail if you slow below 2MPH! (If you go faster, you get a speeding ticket).

    The cameras are supposed to deter crime, but unfortunately, according to mayor Ken Livingstone, owning or using a car is a crime. (Owing or using and SUV is a capital offence.)

    • Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by acb ( 2797 )
      Owning or using a SUV in a city as tightly packed as London *should* be an offence (though perhaps not a capital one). There is no reason to drive oversized, fuel-inefficient personal monster trucks in a city which has narrow streets and perfectly usable public transport. At the very least, those who choose to do so out of personal choice should pay some extra tax to offset the inconvenience and increased pollution they are imposing on the other people they share a city with.
  • Might anyone here perhaps know how many different phone companies could likely compete within a particular zone of a WiMax-covered area? This question is technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) oriented. Major phone companies are trying to hog up the spectrum all for themselves, in various places worldwide. They say that letting in too many players would cause interference and ruin it for everybody. Verizon's probably the biggest culprit in the USA, from what I've been told. For more info. on WiM
  • Judging by the pictures, I think these AP's might be from BelAir.
  • "The local council has set up this municipal Wi-Fi which they call the Technology Mile using cool-looking lampost-mounted access points [picture] at 200 metre intervals along the street, and the whole area is covered by free wireless internet, allowing users to sit in any of the area's numerous cafes or parks and access the internet."

    WiMax has a range measured in kilometers, and they're setting up WiFi at 200 meter interval. Standard short-sighted, taxpayer money wasting solution that I have come to expect
  • Louisville, Kentucky has a few free hotspots in public areas, (Waterfront Park and Fourth Street Live!) however, they are sponsered by a local restaurant company so the city gov't pays little, if any for it.
  • lots of cities are trying to implement large "hotspots" using current hardware (802.11g) with 802.11n not too far off the savings would have to be enormous if they were to wait just a short amount of time for the new hardware... it could cut their repeater requirements in a big way...
  • One of the replies to the original article wants to know specific details about the machinery etc. One of the questions is "How do they get the power supply for the access points?". I mean, more amazingly, how do they get the power to the little bulb at the top of the pole? The streetnet box near me is FUBAR'd for the last 3 months. It won't hand out an IP address. I phoned up streenet and they replied saying "That area isn't covered by wifi". Erm, yes it is. You've got a vandal target antenna on top. And
  • I fear the Technology mile is a victim of its own success, and the connection is painfully slow. I am back to the original Streetnet infrastructure here (which is working fine at about 85kbs).

Slashdot Top Deals

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Close