Company signals expanded Wi-Fi plan

Cellular is 10-20x more power than Wifi and people hold it right next to their head Wireless routers in peoples homes are everywhere already, are they going to be banned as well? The Sun is the most powerful RF transmitter in existence, it puts out millions of megawatts of microwave power that reaches the Earth everyday

Gavin proposes free WiFi for the poor- Daly opposes. Gavin proposes cameras, Daly opposes. Gavin proposes increasing police, Daly opposes. So I guess Gavin is the reason nothing is happening is San Francisco.

Chris Daly and his cohorts have replaced Pat Robertson as the new morality police for SF. As far as the blame game, the Daly-ites blame Gavin for the black-on-black crime wave and needles in the park, which he realistically can do very little about, yet when he tries to do something about it, they cry foul. Gavin's Gay marriage deal was pandering to a well-healed constituency, but so what? At least he made a stand. And you can walk through Civic Center without hurling from the stench of urine and human feces, which you could not do when Art Agnos was Mayor!

Typical reaction from Gavin-the-Spineless: Blame Blame Blame. Blame the Supes for watching out for the best interests of the people. Blame the alcohol for diddling his friend's wife. Blame Chris Daly for pointing out what a wanker Newsom is. If there is an area where this mayor hasn't completely failed the city of SF, I'd like to know about it. Even his gay marriage thing was just an empty ploy to unify support from the gay community. All is not lost, though! He got a free ski trip to Switzerland!

Poor people can't afford to "restructure" their Cell Phone and Cable plans. They can't afford them. Give free WiFi to the poor - hand out Meraki's for free in the Bayview and Western Addition. Give them free PC's too!

And to do homework online (like searching databases, viewing educational videos) one needs a speedy connection. Instead of a long-term deal, how about negotiating reduced "group rates" for qualifying students and make it very affordable like $10 per month for decent speed. (without locking in a multi-year contract with a company with a questionable financial future)? Many "poor" families could certainly restructure their cable and cell plans and therefore accommodate the cost of a more useful educational web connection--rather than paying for mindless channel surfing and endless phone blabbing.

Let us not forget that this deal was to help those without ANY internet get it for free. It wasn't about getting faster for better service for those who already have it. The greedy little web surfers who think it is all about them ( "too slow for useful surfing") need to be reminded that it was about school children being able to get and do their homework on-line, not so web-slurfers could have virtual sex on Second Life. Currently, poor children without ANY internet are at a disadvantage. Who cares about someone who can already afford DSL? This isn't for them

So, Newsom now states that he wishes that the Supes had approved the contract before. So, we would have had a contract with a company that is having some growth or financial difficulties. Would Earthlink have been able to have offered good service, when their current business model is suffering a bit now? Long-term deals when it comes to technology are bad policy. Too much can change in a short span that can nullify the initial advantages. (and high costs may have already been locked in) Hint: negotiate with your ISP for lower DSL rates, by reminding them that in the Bay Area there is ample competition. And don't settle for (optimal) DSL speeds lower than 1.5 downstream. (BTW, the City wireless contract would have provided too low speeds for useful surfing, especially with Web 2.0 demands)

San Francisco? That's right next to Silicon Valley, right?

Well, I hope the supervisors are pleased. In their continuing efforts to cancel any proposal the Mayor makes, they've stopped, for however long they will squabble, what would have been a useful service for the city. But Mr. Newsome has been denied a completeed project! BTW, I certainly agree with Gretchen about the city's ability to run anything.

OK, one vendor is out because the City diddled around too long, so lets start over again. But PLEASE don't let the City own the wi-fi system! They can't run Muni, they can't run the golf courses, they can't get the homeless out of the parks, heck - they can't even fix pot holes! Who in the world thinks the city could build and manage a wi-fi system? And the option to take over ownership of the system from a vendor just means that the service provider will have no motivation to keep the technology current and state-of-the-art. Why would they care if it became obsolete if the city is going to end up as the owner? Newsom and Peskin did a good job on a basic contract, but I spent nearly 40 years working in technology and I KNOW that technology contracts need to be negotiated by people who have in-depth experience in the field. We don't want to end up 8 years from now with a bond issue to upgrade our wi-fi system to make it "current." Let the vendor have that worry and that cost.

Great. So the Board let this deal die. It would not have completely bridged the digital divide, it didn't provide iron-clad protections (that aren't given to their paying customers, either) the ACLU wanted, it wasn't fast. But it was FREE. Once again, the Progressives on the Board of Supervisors gave poor blacks in the Bayview NOTHING. But they have a great plan. They will propose to spend $10 MILLION dollars to build their own system, and they might get it done in 10 YEARS (by which date it will be obsolete). So, all you kids in the Bayview, if you are past second grade, you will not get free internet service as long as you are in public school, thanks to the WHITE Progressives that dominate City Hall.

Are you sure this is not a Chris Daly ploy to get business out of this City?

The supes did a great job defining the terms netoreded to make this a viable deal. The mayor, as usual, doesn't get it. We need to hire a city manager to run our city and will give the mayor more time to make speeches and run tours for the his rich donors.

This EarthLink deal failed because the technology did not provide reliable indoor coverage. The Supes said if you are reallying going to solve the digital divide then this won't do it. They are right.

Meraki is doing an end run around a dysfunctional city government that can't provide even basic services like public transportation and fixing its roads. Based on the rapidity which the Meraki map shows coverage increasing, I'd expect that by the end of the year, either you'll have Meraki access, or Meraki will have failed. It shouldn't be a long wait.

Free Wi Fi and computers for the Bayview and Western Addition NOW! Give Earthlink a pilot to prove their technology by giving it, along with computers, to residents who need it, and probably can't afford it. The folks who are fighting this already have access, and ignore the needs of the poor. If anyone went to the public discussion of this at the Supervisors' committee meeting heard speaker after speaker from the Bayview plead for free Wi-Fi, but the elitist lefties, particularly Mirikirimi and Daly - McGoldrick was absent), completely ignored the poor in favor of the ACLU argument for privacy. Well, guess what, there is no privacy on the internet you idiots!

PLEASE don't let the City own the wi-fi system! They can't run Muni, they can't run the golf courses, they can't get the homeless out of the parks, heck - they can't even fix pot holes! Who in the world thinks the city could manage a wi-fi system? By the way, the option to take over ownership of the system after 16 years (or 8, depending on negotiations) just means that the service provider will have no motivation to keep the technology current and state of the art. Why would they care if it became obsolete if the city is going to end up as the owner? I think Peskin has made some good improvements to the contract negotiation, but I spent nearly 40 years working in technology and I KNOW that technology contracts need to be negotiated by people who have in-depth experience in the field. We don't want to end up 8 years from now with a bond issue to upgrade our wi-fi system to make it "current." Let Earthlink or Google or some vendor have that worry and that cost.

Peskin's demand for 500 KbS is still too slow with the demands of video. Earthlink's customer service is notoriously bad--partly a function of outsourcing to India & Philippines.

Not everyone can do WiFi everywhere. Not everyone has a lap[top. This discussion is only for the HAVES.

Get Meraki and do it yourself. I stopped waiting for City Hall to figure it out and it works great in the Haight. sf.meraki.com

Sabatini forgets the most important Peskin request: Service level Agreement on coverage promised.

Like I trust City hall to fix Muni and Golden Gate park. I can only imagine what's going on during these meetings. Chris Daly jumping up and down like a bafoon screaming, how are my poor homeless constituents going to be able to use this, we must give them laptops so that they can surf the web while standing on the corner begging for money. Get over, get it setup and let the tax paying public surf the web. Or put it on the ballot and force City Hall to implement it.

Peskin's proposal to force Earthlink to sell the Wi-Fi network to the City after eight years would be like asking the SF Giants to sell AT&T Park to the City after investing millions to build it. Why would any company invest that kind of money on a profit making venture only to turn around and give it to the GOVERNMENT, especially the same SF City Government that now can't even manage Parks, Golf Courses, maintain roads, etc., etc., etc.....

anyone worried about wifi radiation should leave the City immediately and find a lead-lined bunker to hide in, as every city block is already bathed in the radio signals of several wifi networks. Worrying about wifi "radiation" is like worring about getting AIDS from a toilet seat. It is simply grossly ignorant.

Every day, since the dawn of humanity, we have been bombarded by "radiation." Why is man made radiation harmful? We're talking about minimal wattage. There is no science behind this quackery, and it's really disappointing to see advocates who don't even believe in this crap take up the cause because they're anti-wifi. Wrap your heads in tinfoil and give me my wifi, losers!!1!

We cannot ignore the potential health risks from the radiation emitted by antennas. Radiation at any level should be a concern and avoided. Little is known about the LONG-TERM EFFECTS of this low-dose, CONTINUOUS radiation. It is known that DNA changes do occur at the cellular level by radiation. What about the CUMULATIVE EFFECTS of ALL the radiation emitted 24/7 by more than 2,500 cell phone antennas in SF, radio antennas, cordless devices in our homes, and countless Wi-Fi’s already installed at individual locations? To risk our health so Google can profit from the ads when you use their WiFi, to pacify those with no life to live via their laptops is ridiculous, and for big companies like Earthlink to profit--all at the potential risk of our health—NO! Providing Wi-Fi to San Franciscans without internet access is a LAME excuse--if you have a phone--you have a connection. Let’s do an EIR before we put our health at further risk and don’t let the big companies win this battle!

You think free Wi-Fi is the answer? First of all it going to be too slow and bogged down with too many users. Sounds great? So what's your next option, to purchase an upgrade at a higher speed for $21+/month? Where's the free in that! Great for Google who will profit from all the ads popping up when surfing the web and Earthlink profits from the upgrade you'll have to purchase for faster service! What's the benefit for us? Oh yeah, we get the radiation whether or not we use it. It looks all one-sided--Yeah, for the BIG COMPANIES! It's time to watch out for ourselves and not for the big companies. Think this will save SF money? Think again, it simply means more $$ for the City to SPEND!

Right now! FREE! FREE WI-FI NOW!

Come on health risk? I think that there is a much greater health risk from all the gasoline burning poorly maintined taxi cabs driving around the city than from a wifi system. Why not require all of them to be Hybrid or CNG since they drive more miles than all of us combined. After you fix that and all the busses you can find somthing menial to worry about.

Other Facts about the Wifi + Current contract has no defined coverage requirements - basically the city gets what it is paying for - no guarantee on coverage - not even for city buildings. + there are indeed people that don't have internet access that are ok with that. + Indoor access is a particular problem yet all the pictures show people using their laptops outdoors - how common is that? Even the $150 bridge repeaters only help with indoor access some of the time.

Items to be heard in Board Committees are to the call of the Committee Chair. I think the reports of the Examiner need a civic lesson instead. Listening to spin doctors are a waiste of everyone's time.

There are already WiFi Hot zones existing in San Francisco.

One other thing... Like many other people in San Francisco, I am planning to buy an Apple iphone when it becomes available in June. When the iphone was announced last January, I was thinking how great it will be to use it anytime I wanted to browse the Internet via the upcoming Earthlink/Google Wi-Fi system from almost anywhere in the city by the end of this year. But now with the Chris Daly Delays, it looks like all SF iphone buyers will have to wait until late 2008 or maybe even 2009 before we will be able to use our iphone to browse the web for free in SF. What a disappointment.

By delaying this vote yet again, Chris Daly if doing San Francisco citizens a huge disservice. Like has already been reported, implementing the Google/Earthlink deal will save me, and many other SF citizens millions of dollars by paying only $22 for the same service that is now costing me almost $50 through Comcast. It makes me wonder if Daly is getting payola from Comcast to purposely keep delaying the vote so that Comcast can keep taking money from SF citizens like me for as long as possible. I have tried using DSL 2 times before in my apartment, but it always ended up being too unreliable. Even if you are a citizen who is not the least bit interested in using the Google/Earthlink Wi-Fi service, why would you possibly rather have the city spend millions of your tax dollars to put in a City-Run service? If you had to call someone with a customer service problem, who do you really think would do a better job at helping you... Earthlink, or a city-run automated call center?

I dont get it! Why would anyone NOT WANT free WiFi? Even if you choose to go with a paid provider, why not accept free outside WiFi access over the whole city? It seems a fantistic thing and will be the case eventually in every large city. Even if you happen to live in a high rise you have not lost anything. You can either put an antenae out a window as suggested, or have it connected to the common antenae on the roof which will no doubt come with time. I do not understand why anyone would be against this offer. What is the reason for someone not wanting this? I have seen no answer to this obvious question?

Clearly those of us commenting here already have Internet access. Clearly some folks do not "get it" that it'd be nice to have Citywide wi-fi for days that are too beautiful to spend indoors working on your DSL/Cable/Dial-up Internet connection - working on school work, selling/buying stuff on eBay, or just checking NextMuni.com with a handheld PDA with Wi-Fi capability ($250 or so for the device, I understand). While San Francisco putzes around, who is to say Earthlink and Google will want to continue fighting the fiscally irresponsible Supervisors who want to spend $10-$20 million MORE of the City's money (that's your and my taxpayers' dollars) to create a totally new bureaucracy to set up a City-owned City-wide wireless network). Chris Daly is a child in a man's body. Too bad his antics of always playing politics, like George W. Bush, are costing low-income folks time and economic opportunity, just like George W. Bush's funding and support for the war. Grow Up!!!

1) wifi routers you purchase at the store do not work with the Earthlink wifi solution. 2) 768 DSL is going to be priced at 10-20 a month shortly due to the FCC requirements from the ATT/SBC merger 3) you can't put your antenna out the window if you don't have a window that faces the street (and you gotta be 40 Ft or below to maybe get a signal).

Dial up users can spend two months of subscription to get a wifi router, then end up with free access that is 7 times faster. People spending $40 / mo on 768 DSL can switch to the $20/mo wireless plan and end up faster as well. In both cases, the citizens save money. As far as outdoors vs. indoors, put your antenna in a window. Not difficult.

If the solution is really for universal access why did the city take out the 95-100% indoor coverage requirements from the contract? Any deal should include free dsl for anyone who can't get the wifi indoors.

The Controller uses a figure of $35 for DSL (vs 10-20) and assumes many people will drop their reliable wired connection which has not been the case in other muni wifi rollouts. Also DSL is 768 speed, the free wifi offered is only 300 speed. These assumptions result in wildly inaccurate savings estimates. Often those still with dial-up are contrarians and won't upgrade - why fix what is working? Notice all the pictures are people using wifi on laptops outdoors? A large majority of the time people need internet access indoors outside the glare of the sun - this is where outside based wifi fails.