Some worries as S.F. goes wireless

City finds itself at center of debate about role of advertising and implications of the network on consumer privacy.
The New York Times

The story "Some worries as S.F. goes wireless" published April 10, 2006 at 5:09 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[William Squire]

City in Shame - Government oversteps responsibility

With all the homeless and hungry people in San Francisco, the government has chosen to spend taxpayer money on a LUXURY item designed for people wealthy enough to already own wireless computing equipment.

For SHAME.

Governments are not, and should not be in the business of providing LUXURY items at taxpayer expense. Were I a tax paying citizen of SF, I'd sue the city.

There is NOTHING FREE about citywide wireless access. Not only are implementations of this size MORE EXPENSIVE than alternatives, they are paid for by people who can already afford a wireless Internet connection in addition to having broadband at home. The poor people that the lousy feel-good politicians pretend to be catering to still don't even know how to use a computer.

Nothing is worse than government waste... unless its in San Francisco and its being wasted on luxuries.

SFChronical points to those who actually could use some government assistance:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/03/MNGGA3EE811.DTL

Inaniloquent makes the point again:
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d49a7645-c2b3-4daf-a165-2a066cb1f791

[regulator1956]

teach a man to . . . .

Give a man a fish, he'll need a fish every day. Let's teach him catch his on fish.

Anything we can do at a resonable cost that increases the opportunity to do more business creates more money for those who are less fortunate.

Don't be short-sighted.