6 ms·

Not everyone can afford cellular or wired Internet. Municipal wifi raises the floor and keeps the most vulnerable connected.

by jws 11y ago

jessriedel 11y ago
Are you sure there's a significant set of people who have wifi devices but no data service? I am under the impression that the poor buy data-capable phones over laptops. Even if they can't afford data for their phone, the phone can accept free 4G if it were to be offered.
- ksml 11y ago
  I'm only one person, but I (and my family) have computers and smartphones but no data. It saves a whole lot of money to be on a prepaid plan when you have wifi in most places you go.
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    Right, but your smart phone is data capable, i.e., can accept a 4G signal. You don't have a dumbphone alongside a computer with wifi. mwsherman's original question was "Why would municipalities offer free wifi rather than free 4G?". jws thought it might be important for folks who didn't have data plans. But my point is that if someone has wifi, they also very likely have a smartphone that's capabale of receiving a 4G signal, even if they cannot afford a data plan from their cell network provider.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > But my point is that if someone has wifi, they also very likely have a smartphone that's capabale of receiving a 4G signal, even if they cannot afford a data plan from their cell network provider. That's a bit of an assumption. I'd like to see some numbers to support it. I know a bunch of people who have wifi capable devices but not devices capable of 4g. Or they have older smartphones that are not 4g capable.
    - Joeri 11y ago
      How would you arrange it practically though? You would have to distribute sim cards, and people would have to swap those out with their normal sim card rendering them unreachable by phone. That's ofcourse assuming their phone isn't carrier-locked. Wifi seems a lot more practical unless phones are redesigned to cover this usage pattern.
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      > mwsherman's original question was "Why would municipalities offer free wifi rather than free 4G?" This isn't quite how I read the comment, but here are some pretty good answers, I think: 1. They would have to either purchase suitable licensed spectrum (literally hundreds of millions of dollars in NYC) or find an existing carrier with which to form an MVNO relationship with generous enough terms that the city could afford to "resell" the service for free. 2. 4G would probably require NYC to deal with distributing phones or SIM cards, and then users would have to figure out how to unlock their devices.
- ucaetano 11y ago
  Oh yeah, especially in emerging markets, where people measure their data allowances by the MB.
  - khgvljhkb 11y ago
    > where people measure their data allowances by the MB. Or in Germany
- rickyc091 11y ago
  In NYC a lot of teens carry iPod or cellphones without data plans. They basically just attempt to connect to whatever free wifi is available. I can see this being a game changer for them since they'll always be connected now.
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    You, like almost everyone else responding to me, have missed the idea that smart phones without data plans still are data capable. (The number of teens without any sort of smartphone carrying around an iPhone that gets wifi is negligible.) The point is that the claim "we should support wifi because the poor don't have devices that can access 4G data" is mistaken. Yes, there may be technical issues surrounding swapping SIM cards that makes a municipal 4G network unworkable, but this isn't the issue I'm addressing. It's discussed by one of the other commenters. And in fact, this downside would effect the poor the least since they could just pick-up a free municipal SIM card and us it continuously (since they often can't afford a network dataplan), while those who can afford network data plans would constantly need to swap SIM cards.
- jws 11y ago
  $30 android tablets with wifi are a pretty good option for being connected. I have a few obsolete iPads with cellular modems paid up which I "loan" to people who need them. Modern tablets on wifi or even obsolete cellphones on wifi would be better. (By "loan", I mean I pay the person to take care of some task for me and provide the device so they can do that, but it keeps them and their children online while they sort out their financial situation. Being a teenager without social internet in the US sucks badly at this point. You become "that kid".) With regards to 4G, any spectrum which can be used for 4G has been bought for billions by the telecom oligopoly. If they wished the poor to have access to social connectivity, they would have done it. At least in the US we politically can't spin up a "basic level" telecom system as a government service. It isn't in our national narrative. So, engineering be damned, it's WiFi or nothing. And lets hope we can keep the telecom oligopoly from jamming Wifi. (Looking at you Verizon and T-Mobile with your LTE-U plans.)

Not everyone can afford cellular or wired Internet. Municipal wifi raises the floor and keeps the most vulnerable connected.

by jws 11y ago

Not everyone can afford cellular or wired Internet. Municipal wifi raises the floor and keeps the most vulnerable connected.

jessriedel 11y ago

Are you sure there's a significant set of people who have wifi devices but no data service? I am under the impression that the poor buy data-capable phones over laptops. Even if they can't afford data for their phone, the phone can accept free 4G if it were to be offered.

ksml 11y ago
I'm only one person, but I (and my family) have computers and smartphones but no data. It saves a whole lot of money to be on a prepaid plan when you have wifi in most places you go.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  Right, but your smart phone is data capable, i.e., can accept a 4G signal. You don't have a dumbphone alongside a computer with wifi. mwsherman's original question was "Why would municipalities offer free wifi rather than free 4G?". jws thought it might be important for folks who didn't have data plans. But my point is that if someone has wifi, they also very likely have a smartphone that's capabale of receiving a 4G signal, even if they cannot afford a data plan from their cell network provider.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > But my point is that if someone has wifi, they also very likely have a smartphone that's capabale of receiving a 4G signal, even if they cannot afford a data plan from their cell network provider. That's a bit of an assumption. I'd like to see some numbers to support it. I know a bunch of people who have wifi capable devices but not devices capable of 4g. Or they have older smartphones that are not 4g capable.
  - Joeri 11y ago
    How would you arrange it practically though? You would have to distribute sim cards, and people would have to swap those out with their normal sim card rendering them unreachable by phone. That's ofcourse assuming their phone isn't carrier-locked. Wifi seems a lot more practical unless phones are redesigned to cover this usage pattern.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > mwsherman's original question was "Why would municipalities offer free wifi rather than free 4G?" This isn't quite how I read the comment, but here are some pretty good answers, I think: 1. They would have to either purchase suitable licensed spectrum (literally hundreds of millions of dollars in NYC) or find an existing carrier with which to form an MVNO relationship with generous enough terms that the city could afford to "resell" the service for free. 2. 4G would probably require NYC to deal with distributing phones or SIM cards, and then users would have to figure out how to unlock their devices.
ucaetano 11y ago
Oh yeah, especially in emerging markets, where people measure their data allowances by the MB.
- khgvljhkb 11y ago
  > where people measure their data allowances by the MB. Or in Germany
rickyc091 11y ago
In NYC a lot of teens carry iPod or cellphones without data plans. They basically just attempt to connect to whatever free wifi is available. I can see this being a game changer for them since they'll always be connected now.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  You, like almost everyone else responding to me, have missed the idea that smart phones without data plans still are data capable. (The number of teens without any sort of smartphone carrying around an iPhone that gets wifi is negligible.) The point is that the claim "we should support wifi because the poor don't have devices that can access 4G data" is mistaken. Yes, there may be technical issues surrounding swapping SIM cards that makes a municipal 4G network unworkable, but this isn't the issue I'm addressing. It's discussed by one of the other commenters. And in fact, this downside would effect the poor the least since they could just pick-up a free municipal SIM card and us it continuously (since they often can't afford a network dataplan), while those who can afford network data plans would constantly need to swap SIM cards.
jws 11y ago
$30 android tablets with wifi are a pretty good option for being connected. I have a few obsolete iPads with cellular modems paid up which I "loan" to people who need them. Modern tablets on wifi or even obsolete cellphones on wifi would be better. (By "loan", I mean I pay the person to take care of some task for me and provide the device so they can do that, but it keeps them and their children online while they sort out their financial situation. Being a teenager without social internet in the US sucks badly at this point. You become "that kid".) With regards to 4G, any spectrum which can be used for 4G has been bought for billions by the telecom oligopoly. If they wished the poor to have access to social connectivity, they would have done it. At least in the US we politically can't spin up a "basic level" telecom system as a government service. It isn't in our national narrative. So, engineering be damned, it's WiFi or nothing. And lets hope we can keep the telecom oligopoly from jamming Wifi. (Looking at you Verizon and T-Mobile with your LTE-U plans.)