Trackback this entry:
http://www.populationstatistic.com/archives/2005/08/16/san-frans-wireless-push/trackback/

Read entry:
SAN FRAN’S WIRELESS PUSH (opens in new window/tab)

6 Feedbacks »
  1. Is the home of the 49ers really 49 square miles?

    Comment by tommy — 08/17/2005 @ 06:00:20 PM

  2. Aha! Very good catch, Tom! I can’t believe I didn’t see that.

    It appears to be true: 7 miles by 7 miles. I’m wondering if city leaders finagled that intentionally. San Francisco is on a peninsula, so there’s not much room to annex extra land; plus I’m not familiar with municipal/regional politics in that other Bay Area.

    It is just one example of local government making reality out of symbolism. It brings to mind Florida’s Space Coast area lobbying for, and getting, the (321) telephone area code. Y’know — 3-2-1, Blastoff?

    Comment by CT — 08/17/2005 @ 09:04:03 PM

  3. How long you reckon before there’s a library-like filtering debate? San Francisco is an unlikely candidate, but if it get to Charlotte or Houston you might see more of it.

    Comment by trumwill — 08/17/2005 @ 10:01:42 PM

  4. I did not know that about the 3.2.1 area code. Very cool… Wild stuff.

    Comment by tommy — 08/18/2005 @ 09:56:49 AM

  5. trumwill: I have no doubt, filtering will rear its ugly head, as soon as the first 12-year-old boy is caught “accidentally” surfing porn sites in a public park.

    It would suck, since filtering technology is so primitive that it tends to block out too much (i.e., access to breast cancer sites, in an effort to ban the boobie pics). On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to expect this sort of free/low-cost service to have limitations; if you want unfettered access, you’d need to pony up your own dough.

    Sort of related to this: City of Tampa’s wi-fi network cuts off access to one hour per session, with a 30-minute break before re-signon. Again, a reasonable tradeoff for free and wireless access; plus, obviously designed for casual situational use, versus an always-on tap.

    Comment by CT — 08/18/2005 @ 10:06:55 AM

  6. I don’t disagree. I think that libraries have every right to filter as would a city-run network. I’m just not looking forward to the debate itself with histrionic screams of censorship and the right to see/do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it.

    Ultimately, though, with filtering technology being as poor as it is, it may become useless to the portion of the population that would use it most. Whether that’s a case for better filtering or not-filtering, I’ll let the policy-makers decide.

    As for Tampa’s restriction, my college did the same thing and it was pretty effective. Most people still bought their own internet if they could, but those that couldn’t afford it had *something*.

    Comment by trumwill — 08/18/2005 @ 12:55:06 PM

RSS feed for feedback on this post.

Leave a comment


PLEASE NOTE: Various types of comment moderation may be triggered once you hit the "Say It!" button below. Common causes for this are the inclusion of several hyperlinks and/or spam words in the comment field. Please do not hit the "Say It!" button more than once. If you feel your comment is being blocked without cause, feel free to email me about it.