San Francisco and the newest civil rights issue

[Loren]

Sometimes politics just sneaks up and surprises you.

The last century of American politics has seen a big upsurge in what some people consider to be 'human rights.' Instead of rights encompassing basically the freedom to act without gov't interference, there's been an increasing push towards 'rights' to receive stuff from the gov't. The right to an education, to health care, to housing, and so on. Even the right to money.

But despite having given the issue a fair amount of thought over the years, I never saw this coming:

San Francisco Mayor sees wireless as basic human right (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051004/wr_nm/telecoms_wireless_sanfrancisco_dc_2)

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "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.

I wonder how long it'll be before someone points out that people too poor to afford internet access may not actually have wireless-ready computers or other portable WiFi gadgets. And I wonder if that realization will lead to a basic human right to computer ownership.

And for anyone else who remembers this particular detail of "DC One Million," mark down this idea as the first big step towards HeadNet.

[Brandon Hanvey]

We just like to be weird in SF.

Here is some local coverage of the situation.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/04/BUG3NF215T1.DTL&type=tech


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/01/MNGG9F16KG1.DTL&type=tech

[Paul McEnery]

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

No shit.

This is why socialists invented the idea of libraries.

This is incredibly cool.

At this point, the price of ownership of a computer is next to nothing. Damn straight everyone ought to have Internet access.

I hate the bugger, but good for Gavin.

[Phrozen]

No shit.

This is why socialists invented the idea of libraries.


Franklin was a socialist? That is news to me.

[Zeta]

This may seem silly now, but 5 years from now - you problably will be a freak of nature without it.

[Dan Apodaca]

Franklin was a socialist? That is news to me.

Franklin was responsible for the Library of Alexandria in 300bc?

Man, that guy was old.

[PatrickG]

He was in the Hellfire Club.

I keep waiting for Marvel to realize that Hellfire Club is a REAL organization.

I wonder what Franklin's mutant power was? Electricity? Or maybe he had pheromone powers...

Dude did have, like, 13 kids by various women.

[BlairH]

"Rights" granted by welfare are not rights at all (Do heroin addicts really have the "right" to free methadone prescriptions?). Things like clean water etc are rights, but wireless internet access is not.

How much will this really cost the taxpayer? Many of whom will not be interested in wireless (or even wired) internet.

[BlairH]

Franklin was responsible for the Library of Alexandria in 300bc?

Man, that guy was old.

Alexander the Great was a Socialist? I think not.

[Spike-X]

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "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.

Well, that's just stupid.

[Wesley Dodds]

"Rights" granted by welfare are not rights at all (Do heroin addicts really have the "right" to free methadone prescriptions?). Things like clean water etc are rights, but wireless internet access is not.

Whether government spending is needed to protect something is irrelevant to whether it's a right. In some "welfare" spending is needed to provide access to clean water but that doesn't make access to clean water any less of a right.

That said, as PME said, access to information as a right is very, very cool.

Actually, acess to certain kinds of information is already a right -- access to information on what your government's doing, for example.

[west3man]

Sometimes politics just sneaks up and surprises you.

The last century of American politics has seen a big upsurge in what some people consider to be 'human rights.' Instead of rights encompassing basically the freedom to act without gov't interference, there's been an increasing push towards 'rights' to receive stuff from the gov't. The right to an education, to health care, to housing, and so on. Even the right to money.

But despite having given the issue a fair amount of thought over the years, I never saw this coming:

San Francisco Mayor sees wireless as basic human right (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051004/wr_nm/telecoms_wireless_sanfrancisco_dc_2)

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "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.

I wonder how long it'll be before someone points out that people too poor to afford internet access may not actually have wireless-ready computers or other portable WiFi gadgets. And I wonder if that realization will lead to a basic human right to computer ownership.

And for anyone else who remembers this particular detail of "DC One Million," mark down this idea as the first big step towards HeadNet.Philly (or was it Pennsylvania?) has already said they'll provide free or nearly-free wi-fi access to either all of their citizens or to those in the under-privileged areas.

By using wi-fi, instead of hardlined access, the costs have remained impressively low.

I'm not sure they said it was a "right," but I thought it was similar enough to restate. They probably only referred to the "digital divide," though.

[Asmith]

But don't public libraries provided machines set up for internet access?
And can't any member of the public go to their local library and access the internet from there?

So how is a single person in San Francisco (can I call it 'cisco?) being denied their debatable right to internet informational access?

Or is part of their inalienable right to the internet that they don't have to move their big fat poor arses off their living room couch to surf the net for spoliers on up-coming episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful?

What nonsense and rot. Sounds like this mayor has a some kinda under the table deal with a wireless broadband contractor!

[Winslow]

Philly (or was it Pennsylvania?) has already said they'll provide free or nearly-free wi-fi access to either all of their citizens or to those in the under-privileged areas.

By using wi-fi, instead of hardlined access, the costs have remained impressively low.

I'm not sure they said it was a "right," but I thought it was similar enough to restate. They probably only referred to the "digital divide," though.

It was more of a decision to lure business . . . . rather than a human rights issue.

At least that's how the papers reported it.

Rights vs. entitlement vs. government interest in social order are too sticky for this tired mind to unravel right now.

It is in a liberal free democratic society's interest to have an educated populace with access to information - but I'm not sure I'd call it a fundamental human right.

[VCreed32]

Jeez, what did Gray Davis do that was worse than Newsom?

[west3man]

It was more of a decision to lure business . . . . rather than a human rights issue.

At least that's how the papers reported it.

Rights vs. entitlement vs. government interest in social order are too sticky for this tired mind to unravel right now.

It is in a liberal free democratic society's interest to have an educated populace with access to information - but I'm not sure I'd call it a fundamental human right.
Well said.

I wonder if libraries or access to them is considered a "right" of one sort or another. As some mentioned, already, that's pretty similar.

[warspite1805]

I thought American peoples rights were all stated in the US Constitution, never knew the Internet was mentioned in there.

[StoneGold]

I thought American peoples rights were all stated in the US Constitution, never knew the Internet was mentioned in there.
It was there, it was just hard to read because it was spelled with all F's.

[Tadhg]

Has the issue of the FCC and Cities competing with private ISPs been resolved yet?

[Winslow]

I thought American peoples rights were all stated in the US Constitution, never knew the Internet was mentioned in there.

Al Gore made sure it was put in . . .

[Brandon Hanvey]

Has the issue of the FCC and Cities competing with private ISPs been resolved yet?

Technically a company such as Google would be providing the Wi-Fi signal.

[bfrank]

I thought google was providing access...

The free WiFi is gonna suck ass...if you want speed you are going to pay for it...

Yes, many libraries do have 1 or 2 computers available to the public...but what happens when the library is closed and you want to find your "B&B" spoilers

Grey fucked the entire state, gavin is just focusing on his city, and frankly so long as Ruby Skye stays open I could care less what he does there, this however is an excellent idea...I hope Moonbeam will follow suit and do the same thing in the 'town....

[BlairH]

Al Gore made sure it was put in . . .
Before or after he invented it?

Remember, the constitution was formulated a whole 2 years before Al Gore invented the internet.

[macul]

The concept of "libraries" has been around for thousands of years. It's amusing that you want to chalk them up as a victory for socialists, paul. :)

Anyway, this idea is kind of stupid. If a city wants to have free widespread access then I don't have a problem with that, but to label it as a fundamental human right is lame. If people want access to information then go to the local library. It's free. They have books, magazines, newspapers, and computers with Internet access. There's your access to information.

[Loren]

This is why socialists invented the idea of libraries.

Hey, I've got no problem with libraries or with free wireless. But I've never heard anyone, anywhere, suggest that people have a fundamental right to a public library. Libraries are a perk, not a right.

And it's that philosophy of Newsom's that I have a problem with. If he thinks free wireless internet is a fundamental right and a civil rights issue in one US city, then it stands to reason that he believes it should be a civil rights issue everywhere. While blanketing a concentrated urban area with WiFi might be efficient and neat, it makes a lot less sense the lower the population density. But if wireless is a human right, then the person in a rural area ought to have the same access as the one downtown. Otherwise, Newsom has created a human right that effectively only exists in urban areas.

Plus, free access to information hasn't been considered a right in any other medium. Newspapers cost money. So do cable news channels, and C-SPAN. You're pretty much entitled to a phone line anywhere now, but free service isn't part of the deal; you either pay your monthly phone bill, or you lose your phone access. Broadcast TV and radio are free, but nobody suggests that people have a right to network TV; rather, private companies can provide it for free due to commercial sponsorship.

If all Newsom was doing was proposing to blanket SF in WiFi signals, I'd probably give it a thumbs up. But it's his reasoning that drives me nuts.

[Paul McEnery]

The concept of "libraries" has been around for thousands of years. It's amusing that you want to chalk them up as a victory for socialists, paul. :)

Anyway, this idea is kind of stupid. If a city wants to have free widespread access then I don't have a problem with that, but to label it as a fundamental human right is lame. If people want access to information then go to the local library. It's free. They have books, magazines, newspapers, and computers with Internet access. There's your access to information.
Not so much public lending libraries.

Certainly, in England they were a socialist thing.

[Joe Rice]

Plus, free access to information hasn't been considered a right in any other medium.

Time for a better example, then. Good on Newsom.

[Royal]

God, I hate cyber utopians.

[Royal]

Ok. folks, repeat after me.

"Information is not Knowledge."

[Joe Rice]

Nobody said it was, Royal. People are either saying, "Yay, free access for everyone, even the poor," or "Boo, this idea will never work!" or "My foot hurts! My name is Blair!"

[Brandon Hanvey]

"Rights" granted by welfare are not rights at all (Do heroin addicts really have the "right" to free methadone prescriptions?). Things like clean water etc are rights, but wireless internet access is not.

How much will this really cost the taxpayer? Many of whom will not be interested in wireless (or even wired) internet.

Depending on who gets the contract, it could cost the city nothing.

Google, the Mountain View search engine, is among the 24 companies that submitted proposals. As part of its plan, Google offered to provide free wireless service at no cost to the city, potentially recouping its costs from online advertising and renting its network to other companies for a fee.

[Royal]

Nobody said it was, Royal. People are either saying, "Yay, free access for everyone, even the poor," or "Boo, this idea will never work!" or "My foot hurts! My name is Blair!"

Wait! Wait!

The poor own communications devices of a high tech nature?

[Joe Rice]

Wait! Wait!

The poor own communications devices of a high tech nature?

You'd be surprised.

[Brandon Hanvey]

My take on this, being a San Francisco native and all, is that it is a neat idea, but internet access is not a natural right. You do not need it to live.

If some company wants to setup the antennas needed (with SF's hills you'll need around 30 per square mile) to cover the city and run the network at no cost to the city, then I say why not.

By the way, Newsom is considered conservative in SF political terms.

[GremlinClr]

Philly (or was it Pennsylvania?) has already said they'll provide free or nearly-free wi-fi access to either all of their citizens or to those in the under-privileged areas.


Weren't some ISPs trying to block this? I thought I read something about free wi-fi cutting into their profits or something.


The free WiFi is gonna suck ass...if you want speed you are going to pay for it...

That's true but people that don't have access to broadband would welcome it with open arms, it's like 7 times faster than dial-up I think?

As someone who has never had anything but dial-up I would love it but since I live in the boonies it's a moot point.

And let's not forget the cheap bastards who would use it just cause it's free even if they have access to faster.

[K'Nort]

The idea of a right to information has been around as long as the US, and that has consistently included a free access component, but it is never going to fly as medium-specific. Even if you get as far as saying everyone has a right to internet access, wireless is way too specific and does not have any unique value.

[Spike-X]

I have to pay for my internet access. Help! I'm being oppressed! Somebody call Amnesty International!

[Dreadstar]

Wait! Wait!

The poor own communications devices of a high tech nature?

Why not?

The welfare guy next door has an STS.

Yep. An honest to god welfare Cadillac.

[Paul McEnery]

My take on this, being a San Francisco native and all, is that it is a neat idea, but internet access is not a natural right. You do not need it to live.

Says the man who has internet access.

Yeah, you do need it to live. It's the only way you'll find out about jobs or be able to submit your resume, these days.

Even if you want to be a waiter. Met a waiter the other day, bitterly complaining about being an out-of-work luddite.

[Brandon Hanvey]

Says the man who has internet access.

Yeah, you do need it to live. It's the only way you'll find out about jobs or be able to submit your resume, these days.

Even if you want to be a waiter. Met a waiter the other day, bitterly complaining about being an out-of-work luddite.

It's true that if you want a job in a corporate environment, you will most likely need internet access to find and apply for the job. But you can still get a entry level retail job by applying in person at most places.

While internet access isn't needed to live, it does make communicating and finding information a lot easier.

[VCreed32]

Yeah, you do need it to live. It's the only way you'll find out about jobs or be able to submit your resume, these days.
Can I sig this?

[macul]

Nobody said it was, Royal. People are either saying, "Yay, free access for everyone, even the poor," or "Boo, this idea will never work!" or "My foot hurts! My name is Blair!"

Well, that's not quite right. I'm not saying the idea will never work. Some cities have successfully provided for public wireless Internet service and I have no problem with that. However, I do have a problem when someone considers it a basic civil right.

[Boldido]

Am I the only one who thinks that if someone can afford a wi-fi compatible laptop that odds are they can afford internet access?

[Hiromi]

Am I the only one who thinks that if someone can afford a wi-fi compatible laptop that odds are they can afford internet access?
Or at the least they can go spend time in shops that provide wireless networks, which are becoming increasingly more common.

[Wesley Dodds]

Hey, I've got no problem with libraries or with free wireless. But I've never heard anyone, anywhere, suggest that people have a fundamental right to a public library. Libraries are a perk, not a right.
:mad:
How can you possibly expect people to live without access to knowledge? That's like asking people to live without oxygen.

[Alex]

I'm not poor and still don't have any wireless capabilities (Cept for my cell phone, but i can't use the internet on it)
Im not seeing how this is a neccesity.

[Alex]

:mad:
How can you possibly expect people to live without access to knowledge? That's like asking people to live without oxygen.
He's got a point though, there is no guarented right to libraries.
I'm all for free books, but i don't think there is any law stating that we have a right to free books. So, in that way, it is a perk.

[Spike-X]

Am I the only one who thinks that if someone can afford a wi-fi compatible laptop that odds are they can afford internet access?
And if they can't well, I guess the city will just have to provide one. After all, if it's a basic human right...

[Paul McEnery]

Oy. You people.

Wifi has been fought for for years by the nice people who think about these things. Like the EFF.

They've devised ways for Africans to make a Wifi device out of a can of Pringles and a coathanger.

Which is a good thing.

Those people in SF who already are willing to do that sort of thing are already Wifi.

Defeating arseholes like the baby bells is also a good thing.

So, you get a visionary moment in a mediocre mayor where he suggests creating an information infrastructure for the 21st Century.

And there's a way we can get it for no money down?

And you're bitching?

Oy.

Though to address the rest of you wankers who don't know you're born:

It took a hell of a lot of bother to get you this bloody thing called the internet. And you don't know the half of it. Whoo! You get to buy a sofa from EBay and get a crap date off of Craigslist, and you think you know which end is up.

Oh shut up.

Those of us who got this bugger up and running in the first place intended that it ought to be free for everyone. We wanted everyone to get access to all information, because that's the only bloody way we'll have real democracy, and real freedom.

You don't like that?

Then bollocks to you.

[Boldido]

Oy. You people.

Wifi has been fought for for years by the nice people who think about these things. Like the EFF.

They've devised ways for Africans to make a Wifi device out of a can of Pringles and a coathanger.

Which is a good thing.

Those people in SF who already are willing to do that sort of thing are already Wifi.

Defeating arseholes like the baby bells is also a good thing.

So, you get a visionary moment in a mediocre mayor where he suggests creating an information infrastructure for the 21st Century.

And there's a way we can get it for no money down?

And you're bitching?

Oy.

Though to address the rest of you wankers who don't know you're born:

It took a hell of a lot of bother to get you this bloody thing called the internet. And you don't know the half of it. Whoo! You get to buy a sofa from EBay and get a crap date off of Craigslist, and you think you know which end is up.

Oh shut up.

Those of us who got this bugger up and running in the first place intended that it ought to be free for everyone. We wanted everyone to get access to all information, because that's the only bloody way we'll have real democracy, and real freedom.

You don't like that?

Then bollocks to you.


http://www.pharmacyseek.com/images/meds/valium.jpg

Hardly anyone here is decrying the idea of free wi-fi Paul. I do stand by the notion that as the market stands now, if you can afford a wi-fi computer, you can afford access. That being said, I think its a great idea. I also think, however that to call it a "basic human right" does nothing but to cheapen the phrase "basic human right".

"In my country, my husband was dragged from his bed in the middle of the night. He was tortured for days while we had no way of knowing where he was. The government then held him for thirty years on secret evidence. Our government has no respect for "basic human rights"."

"I know what you mean. We suffer greatly too. We have to...gasp...pay for wi-fi." <weeps openly>

[Alex]

"I know what you mean. We suffer greatly too. We have to...gasp...pay for wi-fi." <weeps openly>
Without free wi fi, how would her laptop allow the first woman to know her husband was being tortured?

[macul]

<snip>

Nice rant, but you missed the point.

I don't think anyone cares if a city wants to provide wireless Internet service. I know of several cities that do and I think it is a great service. So, it *should* be obvious to you at this point that the notion of providing access isn't the point of contention. The point of contention is that it is somehow a civil right, that we must provide access for people who can't afford it on their own. We can't keep regarding every little perk that comes along as a civil right.

edit: frikked up my quoting.

[K'Nort]

I can even see providing access to people. That's why libraries have all the internet terminals now. Because it is pretty well considered vital. Information Age and all. I just don't see how that translates into the access must be wireless.

[Tadhg]

I can even see providing access to people. That's why libraries have all the internet terminals now. Because it is pretty well considered vital. Information Age and all. I just don't see how that translates into the access must be wireless.

They feel home access is vital, and the easiest and cheapest way would be wireless.

[K'Nort]

They feel home access is vital, and the easiest and cheapest way would be wireless.

But home access to other forms of information aren't considered vital.

[VCreed32]

Why isn't telephone access as important as wi-fi?

Free cellular phones for everyone!

[Winslow]

http://www.pharmacyseek.com/images/meds/valium.jpg


mmmmm . . valium . . . . best buzz I ever had . . . . . .

I think the clam chowder at Fisherman's wharf should be free. That's good stuff . . .every human should experience the taste of a hot bowl of clam chowder on a cool foggy San Fanciso morning.

[macul]

They feel home access is vital, and the easiest and cheapest way would be wireless.

And after we give in to the "civil right" of free wireless access we'll soon find ourselves giving in to the "civil right" of making sure everyone has a computer capable of wifi along with making sure everyone's computer works. The city will be responsible for technical support.