[cmeisenzahl]

http://tinyurl.com/b2ea9

[Millennium]

Kind of like cable TV service, huh?

Seriously. Just because something is pleasant does not make it a basic huuman right, folks. Pursuing happiness might be a basic right, but obtaining it is not; that must be earned.

[cmeisenzahl]

Why don't we just rid the world of hunger by making food a basic right? We could do the same thing with Coach bags. Heck, dual-processor G5s could go this way too. ;-)

[Y3a]

Again, a politician wo has NO IDEA of what a "Right" is. Pathetic. Probably went to school in CA.

[dcmacdaddy]

Wireless Internet access is a basic right?!? What a dumbass!

Rights are very different from needs which are different from wants. Wireless Internet access is a want for the human population NOT a need and most definitely NOT a right.

[cpt kangarooski]

The direct quote actually was "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," and honestly, I'd agree with him. Our system of government, our economy, and our society all are such that they work better, and are easier to participate in, when people have more information available to them. Education is, of course, its own reward, and shouldn't stop at some arbitrary point, either.

Think of it as being similar to universal healthcare, but for the mind.

[idjeff]

It is a right....

If you have the money to pay for it.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

The direct quote actually was "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," and honestly, I'd agree with him. Our system of government, our economy, and our society all are such that they work better, and are easier to participate in, when people have more information available to them. Education is, of course, its own reward, and shouldn't stop at some arbitrary point, either.

Think of it as being similar to universal healthcare, but for the mind.

Isn't that what libraries are for?

[smacintush]

Meanwhile, there are an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 homeless in SF. I guess having a home isn't a right but WiFi is…

Anyway…

Is he going to buy laptops for everyone too? Seems like the ones would really benefit from this may have a tough time affording the computers to access it.

[cpt kangarooski]

Isn't that what libraries are for?

Yes. But there's no reason to stop there. If information isn't conveniently accessible, then often it might as well not be accessible at all. For example, I have a library card for the Library of Congress, but since I don't live in the DC area, the fact that I _can_ go in there and get more or less anything I want doesn't help me much. What I realistically have available to me is stuff in the local library networks and ILL.

Libraries are good, but anyone being able to access their collections from anywhere is even better.

And while wifi laptops might generally be costly now, don't assume that this will remain true for long. MIT, for example, is working on a $100 laptop that would have wifi, and even a crank so that it doesn't have to be plugged in for power. Eventually wifi gear will be cheap enough that anyone can access this network with a minimal cost for equipment.

[goMac]

I agree wireless internet should be a right. The internet has become the worlds information repository, it's like a modern day Library of Alexandria. Education is a basic American right which makes us different from other countries.

This isn't China folks. The US should be working to make the world's databases easier to access. What if we could even unburden from legacy systems like telephone, cell phones, and over air broadcasting and go all WiFi or WiMax.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

http://tinyurl.com/b2ea9

I don't see the controversy here. Yes, he overdid the rhetoric a bit by implying that wireless internet is a "right" (he didn't actually say that, just implied it), but the basic facts are he wants cheap WiFi to cover all of San Francisco, at little or no cost to taxpayers. Seems like a great idea.

What exactly about this is a bad thing?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

I don't see the controversy here. Yes, he overdid the rhetoric a bit by implying that wireless internet is a "right" (he didn't actually say that, just implied it), but the basic facts are he wants cheap WiFi to cover all of San Francisco, at little or no cost to taxpayers. Seems like a great idea.

"It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

"This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

That's some heavy duty "implying"

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

What exactly about this is a bad thing?

I can't say that it is "bad". If the mayor of kook city wants to do it and the people agree, great. I would probably support something like that in my area were it to come about. I think that I would be a little upset if the Feds tried to implement something like this. It's essentially welfare internet. I also am a little unclear as to how this will be paid for. He said he wants it to be free or cost very little. Aren't taxes gonna have to cover the costs somewhere along the line?

I think that saying…or implying…that it is a right is retarded. I agree that the availability of information is a very important part of a free society but free WiFi is not a right. It is ultimately the responsibility of a person to go get information for themselves, not have a government hand deliver it to them.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I can't say that it is "bad". If the mayor of kook city wants to do it and the people agree, great. I would probably support something like that in my area were it to come about.

So you're basically saying it has nothing to do with the idea itself, just the person proposing it. "The mayor of kook city", as you put it. I understand now.

Sometimes I think some people on here would criticize breathing if they think a liberal invented it.

I think that I would be a little upset if the Feds tried to implement something like this. It's essentially welfare internet.

This is not at all the same, unless you also consider public libraries to be "welfare books". The mayor is simply (correctly) considering WiFi as a valuable means to get information in our modern era. Cities (and the federal government) provide this information all the time in many different ways, from the public libraries to the various registrars (offices of records) that exist at all levels of government. These are paid for with taxpayer dollars today. WiFi internet access is merely a high-tech library, the fundamental concept is not new at all nor out of bounds for any government, especially a city government.

I also am a little unclear as to how this will be paid for. He said he wants it to be free or cost very little. Aren't taxes gonna have to cover the costs somewhere along the line?

Maybe, maybe not. If it's a partnership with an internet provider, in exchange for advertising or something, the cost to taxpayers could be minimal to nil. Or citizens may pay for usage but at cheaper rates than normal. In any case, we can only speculate, since the story doesn't exactly state how this proposal fits into his budget. It does, however say that the cost is fairly cheap, so I wouldn't be surprised if he could scrounge up 8 million for this without hitting up taxpayers.

I think that saying…or implying…that it is a right is retarded. I agree that the availability of information is a very important part of a free society but free WiFi is not a right. It is ultimately the responsibility of a person to go get information for themselves, not have a government hand deliver it to them.

WiFi is simply making information available. It is no more "hand delivering" said information than a library is. The government isn't and should never be in the business of controlling the information, but giving access to it is perfectly ok with me. City governments all over the US have provided other utilities such as water and electricity, it's logical that WiFi could be similar.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

So you're basically saying it has nothing to do with the idea itself, just the person proposing it. "The mayor of kook city", as you put it. I understand now.

Sometimes I think some people on here would criticize breathing if they think a liberal invented it.

Wow, you read a lot into that. As well as put motivation behind my comment that just isn't there. The only thing besides this that I know about him is the gay marriage thing which I could care less about.

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

This is not at all the same, unless you also consider public libraries to be "welfare books". The mayor is simply (correctly) considering WiFi as a valuable means to get information in our modern era. Cities (and the federal government) provide this information all the time in many different ways, from the public libraries to the various registrars (offices of records) that exist at all levels of government. These are paid for with taxpayer dollars today. WiFi internet access is merely a high-tech library, the fundamental concept is not new at all nor out of bounds for any government, especially a city government.


Maybe, maybe not. If it's a partnership with an internet provider, in exchange for advertising or something, the cost to taxpayers could be minimal to nil. Or citizens may pay for usage but at cheaper rates than normal. In any case, we can only speculate, since the story doesn't exactly state how this proposal fits into his budget. It does, however say that the cost is fairly cheap, so I wouldn't be surprised if he could scrounge up 8 million for this without hitting up taxpayers.


WiFi is simply making information available. It is no more "hand delivering" said information than a library is. The government isn't and should never be in the business of controlling the information, but giving access to it is perfectly ok with me. City governments all over the US have provided other utilities such as water and electricity, it's logical that WiFi could be similar.

My main point was that saying this is a right is retarded, and I think it is, but you make some interesting arguments as to why this could be a good idea. Too bad you started it off by being a dick.

[mojo2]

The funny thing is that Newsome is a BUSINESSMAN! But he is as shrewd a politician as Willie Brown was. He is catering to his liberal base and encouraging even moderates and greedy young short sighted conservatives with PDA's and laptops to accept this "little gift!" Courtesy of Uncle Gavin!

To the Wi-Fi set and gays and lesbians, he's carving out for himself quite a little track record that any challenger will be hard to assail.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Yes. But there's no reason to stop there.

Sure there is. Assuming the ability to read -and wireless access does not obviate this need- anyone can go to a local library and, either through its own collection or inter-library loan, get information on practically any subject known to humanity.

If information isn't conveniently accessible, then often it might as well not be accessible at all. For example, I have a library card for the Library of Congress, but since I don't live in the DC area, the fact that I _can_ go in there and get more or less anything I want doesn't help me much. What I realistically have available to me is stuff in the local library networks and ILL.

So? As you pointed out yourself, you have local libraries. That is enough, is it not? Or have people gotten so lazy that having to actually go somewhere to do something is now a horrible human-rights violation? Have we become that out of touch with the world around us? Are we as geeks thativory-tower? If so, then I'm turning in my geek card. I don't want to be that divorced from reality.

Libraries are good, but anyone being able to access their collections from anywhere is even better.

Yes, but you cannot access their collections from anywhere, nor will you ever be able to if the publishers have their way. Even if you were able to do this, would it be a basic need in order to survive, or to function as part of this gestalt-god called "society"? No, in either case. Therefore, there is no rationale for calling it a basic right.

[cpt kangarooski]

Mil--

you have local libraries. That is enough, is it not?

No, it is not. Information is more valuable when it is at your fingertips. The dictionary widget is more useful than the hardcopy dictionary I have at home. Wikipedia is more useful than the EB at the public library. Lexis is more useful than the shelves and shelves of hardcopy reporters, codes, and Shepard's at the county law library.

Having vast quantities of information at hand is more valuable than having it in a building miles away that is only open at certain hours. With transactional costs so comparatively high for the library, I'm just as likely to not bother using certain information I'd need to gather from there than I am to go get it. If the costs are so slight however (and in the case of Lexis, they could be a lot slighter) then I can do more research, faster and more efficiently, and make use of more valuable information than otherwise.

Your argument is pretty wrong, and we can see that by applying it in other circumstances. Is it laziness that is to blame for people insisting on having showers in their own homes, rather than going down to a public bath? Or laundry facilities, because who doesn't love schlepping down to the laundromat instead of having their own machine? Or computers? Surely you, Mil, don't actually own a computer, you just use the public terminals at the oh-so-convenient public library. (Myself, I have ten computers here, and another few in storage, and I only even use two of them on a regular basis!)

Yes, but you cannot access their collections from anywhere, nor will you ever be able to if the publishers have their way.

And I'm amongst those that are against letting them have their way, and I'm working on making that a reality, so it's a bit of a non-issue here.

Even if you were able to do this, would it be a basic need in order to survive, or to function as part of this gestalt-god called "society"? No, in either case.

Access to so much information is not at the base of the Maslow hierarchy perhaps (although it helps at all levels: if you need food, a guide to what's safe to eat, or where you can find food, is extremely valuable, for example).

But so what? Lots of fundamental rights are not essential for basic survival. History shows that people can survive without marrying, without free speech, without democratic government, without freedom of religion, without lots of things. Does this mean that they're unimportant, and not really rights? No, not in the least.

Our society keeps getting better. This means that we can afford to help its members more, and that we have an obligation to do so. Greater freedoms and assurances of minimum standards not only yield direct benefits, but they're a key part of the engine that is improving society.

If we end up in a Mad Max post-apocalyptic scenario, then maybe it ends up being a right that we can't manage to fulfill. (Although lots of information is a key way to get out of that kind of mess) And maybe we haven't managed to find some of the rights that are out there because we're not advanced enough to. But that doesn't mean that here and now your criticism is warranted.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

No, it is not. Information is more valuable when it is at your fingertips.

Almost anything is more valuable when it is at your fingertips, and yet not everything is considered a basic human right. What makes information special?

The dictionary widget is more useful than the hardcopy dictionary I have at home. Wikipedia is more useful than the EB at the public library. Lexis is more useful than the shelves and shelves of hardcopy reporters, codes, and Shepard's at the county law library.

Are they really more useful, or simply more convenient? Is convenience a basic human right?

Having vast quantities of information at hand is more valuable than having it in a building miles away that is only open at certain hours.

Is it really, or is it just a matter of convenience? If there are not enough libraries then this is a flaw in the implementation of the public library system, but that does not mean that the concept is flawed. It could be said that people got along far better, with less of a divide between rich and poor, for many decades before the popularization of the Internet with "only" a public library system in place. By your logic, wireless Internet access has made things worse, not better. Indeed, when one looks at the average writing and research skills of students and new professionals nowadays there's an awfully strong correlation even if a causal link can't be proven. It's as though people don't know how to access and use the information even though it's supposedly so much more "convenient" and "useful".

In short, are you sure that the information is so much more "useful" and "valuable", or have you simply begun to take it for granted?

With transactional costs so comparatively high for the library, I'm just as likely to not bother using certain information I'd need to gather from there than I am to go get it.

Not if you truly need the information, you won't be. If anything, you'll do your research more carefully, to avoid having to take more trips.

Your argument is pretty wrong, and we can see that by applying it in other circumstances. Is it laziness that is to blame for people insisting on having showers in their own homes, rather than going down to a public bath?

Last I checked, indoor plumbing is not considered a basic human right. Indeed, in quite a few developed nations public baths remain quite popular; consider Japan. The availability of plumbing to those who want it is sometimes considered a measure of the economic advancement of a nation, but I have yet to see indoor plumbing appear on any list of human rights by any organization, no matter how lunatic.

Or laundry facilities, because who doesn't love schlepping down to the laundromat instead of having their own machine?

Again, last I checked, washing machines were not considered a basic human right. Indeed, there have been times in my life when I found the local laundromat to be more convenient than the washing machine in my home, because of the laundromat's larger capacity.

Or computers? Surely you, Mil, don't actually own a computer, you just use the public terminals at the oh-so-convenient public library.

Actually, between my wife and I we own three; I have a desktop and we each have a laptop. But those are hardly basic human rights. Those computers are only rights insofar as they are our property; in all other aspects, they were a privilege that we chose to take, at the expense of other privileges we might have taken instead. If we did not have them, we could in fact use public terminals when we needed that kind of access.

(Myself, I have ten computers here, and another few in storage, and I only even use two of them on a regular basis!)

And you talk about access to information being a basic need, when you have so much capacity that you don't even use? Clearly you are taking your access for granted, rather than the earned privilege that it is and ought to be.

But so what? Lots of fundamental rights are not essential for basic survival. History shows that people can survive without marrying, without free speech, without democratic government, without freedom of religion, without lots of things. Does this mean that they're unimportant, and not really rights? No, not in the least.

Apples-oranges comparisons, in that these are freedoms of belief and action. In particular, they are not placing possessions as basic human rights, which you are trying to do with wireless access.

Our society keeps getting better.

Only by some measures, and this implies a belief in 'society' as anything more than the sum of its parts. If you don't believe in this, where does this place you? This is what I mean by a 'gestalt-god'.

This means that we can afford to help its members more, and that we have an obligation to do so.

Why? Whence does this obligation come, and whence does this source derive its authority to do so?

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I can't say that it is "bad". If the mayor of kook city wants to do it and the people agree, great. I would probably support something like that in my area were it to come about. I think that I would be a little upset if the Feds tried to implement something like this. It's essentially welfare internet. I also am a little unclear as to how this will be paid for. He said he wants it to be free or cost very little. Aren't taxes gonna have to cover the costs somewhere along the line?

I think that saying…or implying…that it is a right is retarded. I agree that the availability of information is a very important part of a free society but free WiFi is not a right. It is ultimately the responsibility of a person to go get information for themselves, not have a government hand deliver it to them.

Well, Google has submitted a plan to provide WiFi to San Francisco for free.

I really can't see how this is a bad thing, other than that it is happening in San Francisco and not in your city. It isn't welfare internet, and nobody really needs a "debate" over whether or not government is supposed to hand-deliver information to its citizens.

If you can convince Google to provide free housing to all the homeless in San Francisco, then good for you. But homelessness is a much more difficult problem than WiFi, and it has no easy, cheap technological solutions.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by tie

Well, Google has submitted a plan to provide WiFi to San Francisco for free.

That's their prerogative, and as long as they use money earned by honest means and given fgreely and willingly, then by all means they can do so. I have no desire to contribute to such a thing, but since no one is making me do so I have no problem with others doing so if they want to.

[sminch]

Meanwhile, there are an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 homeless in SF. I guess having a home isn't a right but WiFi is…

surely this is the (or at least, a) key issue here? plans like this just reek of pandering to the perceived rights / whims of the few wealthiest citizens and ignoring the very real needs of the ones we don't give a damn about.

of course this all falls down if it's not coming out of the taxpayer's pocket.

sminch

[Mark Larr]

Until Google stops funding it.

[smacintush]

It is rare indeed that a company gives away something for free. Someone somewhere is gonna get paid, which means that since this supposed to be free, someone somewhere will be getting screwed San Francisco style.

[NYCFarmboy]

Well Google is a house of cards, I say let San Francisco take advantage of the fools.

If anyone SERIOUSLy believes Google is worth what their market capitalization is in terms of share price ..well they have been smoking something.

Take advantage of the suckers as long as you can I say!

[Y3a]

Only factual info should be available to all. Opinions stated as fact is what the internet and it's many sites has become. TOO POLITICAL. Lazy people won't go to the library.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Only factual info should be available to all. Opinions stated as fact is what the internet and it's many sites has become. TOO POLITICAL. Lazy people won't go to the library.

Interesting - arguing against the availability of internet access to all because it's too political... on a political internet forum. Absurdity, much?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Well Google is a house of cards, I say let San Francisco take advantage of the fools.

If anyone SERIOUSLy believes Google is worth what their market capitalization is in terms of share price ..well they have been smoking something.

Take advantage of the suckers as long as you can I say!

Bingo!

[paul w]

edit: Actually, seems fine to me.