Can I just say how much I love the way public libraries have navigated themselves into the digital age?
They are, as this piece points out, very popular places to access computers and the Internet, and many libraries offer a wealth of digital content. I can check out and instantly download e-books and audiobooks and movies from my library.
It's certainly conceivable that they might have transitioned less well. There is, after all, a healthy amount of government bureaucracy in the public library system, and that tends to stymie innovation. And then there's just the pain of transition. Bookstores have felt those pains hard; it's not that people don't want content, but they want content in different forms, and a lot of bookstores just couldn't move fast enough.
But I'm really glad to see libraries continue to be generally healthy, and important community resources.
Public libraries are amazingly accessible, but university libraries remain complicit in the ongoing racket of pay-to-read academic literature. Although many university libraries allow guest access during the day, you cannot access their academic subscriptions unless you're on the secure wifi.
In Finland many public libraries nowadays have even 3D printers and film slide scanners, and arrange training sessions for their use. It's really a wonderful system, and probably not even that expensive considering the learning potential for even the disadvantaged citizens.
Plus having a library card often gets you access (even remote access!) to lots of expensive services - I use the OED, J-stor, etc. from home with gusto. I will say there's a small dark side to having gone digital, many libraries have culled a lot of their holdings, and/or can't afford to buy as many books as they once did (have to pay for those licenses somehow...). It's likely that there's less demand, but it still makes me a little sad.
Yes, I discovered this myself far later than I should have!
The SF central branch has a really good selection of programming/tech books. Also, having a library card enables access (as you note) to a wide selection of ebooks[1].
(I note, however, that the interface that you can use them through could use some redesign.)
>Bookstores have felt those pains hard; it's not that people don't want content, but they want content in different forms, and a lot of bookstores just couldn't move fast enough.
I'd say rather than people preferring digital, its the browsing and buying experience of the same old printed matter that needs to change for them to stay competitive. Bookstores have until now been little more than warehouses that store books, and let people walk in and buy them. That same function is done better by Amazon.
What an updated bookstore needs to be about is the experience: Curation and recommendations so that you can find books that you didn't know you'd love (this is invaluable), a nice environment that makes you want to go there and makes books feel exciting. It should also hold events - launches, readings, discussions, exhibitions, workshops. It has to be more than a warehouse, basically.
This encompasses retail for all industries: Experience, service, novelty.
Can I just say how much more civil the comments are here on HN re: libraries as opposed to, say, the last article I read on reddit[0] re: the subject. Seems the only thing they could do is complain about the homeless.
I have web access at my cities public library, but that's it. They have a fiber connection, wifi, and lots of working space but you can't even access github, Dropbox, or most vps's
The world really looks different if you only have a handheld device -- it's more read-only and because of caps and expensive mobile plans, you will use it less.
In cities there's a chance that libraries can help, but with rural poverty it's really a trap!
Karen McGrane gave a great talk about just this issue. She made the very valid point that many employment portals are neglected backwaters and don't have mobile friendly or responsive designs, making them unusable on phones. That effectively cuts off employers from huge chunks of potential employees and verges on not being equal-opportunity employers.
I'm a little bit surprised: Raspberry Pi 3, say, 40$ (current price on Adafruit). Let's say 70$ for RPi + power adapter + enclosure + mouse + keyboard + SD card. You surely have a TV. Use your mobile phone to set up a hotspot - problem solved. If this is still too expensive: There are lots of hobbyists having old RPi lying around. Or companies that have old mouses and keyboards lying around that aren't used anymore and are happy to give them away for a symbolic sum.
Interesting. I live in a country with a minimum wage of $58 a month (Ukraine) and yet the internet is one of the few things that pretty much anyone can afford: high speed connections (50-100mbps) cost about $2-4; rarely more.
Are american high prices the result of scummy pricing on the corporations' side or is it an actual infrastructural issue that prevents the ISPs from providing cheap connections to everyone?
In the US, many people have only one choice for an Internet/TV/phone provider. Some have two choices. It is exceedingly rare to find a place with three choices.
Telecoms are typically granted local monopolies. As a result, they can charge pretty much what they want. And they do. Even in markets with a duopoly, companies very rarely attempt to beat each other on price, it's not in their best long-term interest to (but I doubt they are outright colluding).
The only places where it is more expensive than the norm to build out is in more rural areas... but the telecoms sometimes don't build out there at all, so some people are stuck with whatever they can get with a copper phone line, or satellite Internet if they can afford it (that's very expensive as well).
In my area - Optimum wants $50 for 60/25, plus $10 to rent a modem monthly, plus other taxes and fees (most of them made up) that are nigh impossible to find out beforehand. For TV and phone as well, $90 plus rental fees for the router and required boxes for each TV However, Optimum is terrible at my particular house, but we're one of the lucky ones who can choose Verizon as well. Verizon wants $70 for 100/100, reduced TV service, and phone, plus all the fees above. The telecoms push the bundles very hard.
As you can see, this shit's expensive (adds up to $130).
The vast majority of the cost of any kind of infrastructure is labor, which scales with local wages.[1] A New York subway ticket is about $2.75. That's about 11x more than the cost of a ticket on the Kiev Metro. And it's not like the New York subway makes a profit--fares cover only about half the system's operating costs.[2]
In Baltimore, I paid about $50 for a 50mbps connection, or about 20x more than a subway ticket. Sounds like the ratio is about the same order of magnitude in Ukraine.
[1] A telecom field technican in the U.S. makes about $6,000-$7,000 per month, plus benefits. That's about 20x what the average Ukrainian in Kiev makes (according to the Internet).
[2] Fares on D.C.'s metro, which similarly cover only about 50% of costs, range from $1.75 to $5.90(!).
The minimum wage in US would be $1200 per month. So if the average price in the US is $55, that's about 4.5% of a monthly salary.
Given your quoted numbers, the price in Ukraine is actually higher at 5% of a monthly salary.
Of course the US doesn't have a monthly minimum wage (not sure how that works in Ukraine) so many people in the US might only have part time jobs paying the minimum hourly wage, hence they make considerably less than $1200 a month.
Many countries benefited from having a government owned telecom monopoly.
In the US, we get the downside legacies of a monopoly without the benefit of government control.
The last mile and regional infrastructure (poles, mostly) is owned by private interests, who tend to be dicks about sharing. There's also a regulatory tension between the Federal government and state governments.
Now I understand why Russian-speakers dominate many gaming communities. I pay around 20$ for an 8mbps connection, with a monthly download limit of about 50GB. Now you know why there won't be Indians competing in global e-leagues for a long time to come.
I've lived in very affluent neighborhoods that have access to a single, shitty, ISP. So even when you can afford the inflated and outrageous prices you're still at the mercy of an incredibly corrupt and poor preforming corporation.
Proportionally, the price may be comparable. For example, in Massachusetts, the current minimal wage is $10 per hour which translates into about $1700 monthly. 50-100 Mbps in Comcast can be had for about $40-60. Now, a monthly subscription of $2 out of $58 is 1/29, and $1700/29 = $58.
Of course, not all components of the prices translate proportionally. Salaries probably do, equipment probably does not.
1) it costs a great deal less in salary to pay construction workers to install aerial or buried fiber in ukraine. Or to aim point to point microwave.
2) A network engineeering position that might cost a company $115,000/year in the US could be filled for $35,000/year in Ukraine.
3) Eastern european ISPs are much more "Adventurous" in terms of the low cost network equipment they use for core infrastructure. $1500 Mikrotiks in the same role where a US ISP would use a $15,000 Ciscos or Juniper. Building five to six nines uptime core router POPs with fully redundant -48VDC A and B power is not cheap.
Rather than home internet access. I'd create safe study places for these kids to do their homework and even just hang around in.
Children in poverty often suffer from dysfunctional families that disrupt their studying and lack of life mentors to motivate them to pay attention in school.
If you could have supervised after school hours just for these kids to do their homework and maybe engage in a bit of self learning it would be much more useful than having home internet access.
You need water to be a productive member of society. (Or to survive at all, but that's a prerequisite.) You need food to be a productive member of society. (Or to survive at all, but that's a prerequisite.) You need shelter to be a productive member of society. More often that not, you need electricity to be a productive member of society. Increasingly so, you need internet to be a productive member of society.
In every case, the person consuming these resources either:
[a] pays for them on their own
[b] is provided them but paid by someone else, possibly in aggregate (family, government services, charity)
[c] not provided them at all, in which case they are no longer a productive member of society (or worse, near-starving, starving, or dead)
Ethics and economic systems notwithstanding, the first few are 'hard problems' that humanity has struggled with for millennia. Internet access is comparatively easy, because the marginal costs of distribution are low, but just like other 'utilities' and 'necessities', the capital cost is high.
One way to offset this is to create a market like for electricity, where multiple players, some private, some government-owned, compete at the supply-side and distribution-side, to provide capacity at prices that are close to the cost of (production+transmission) for the area.
Luckily, unlike electricity, water, food, or shelter, information can be duplicated, format-shifted, batched, compressed, time-delayed, and the like. If fixed-fiber-based Internet to arbitrary endpoints is too expensive despite the presence of a market, cache or store more content closer to the consumer on CDNs. If last-mile distribution is too expensive, switch to a different last-mile distribution paradigm -- this latter one is what public libraries (and public hotspots) currently accomplish. If bi-directional communication is desired, investigate peer-to-peer solutions. There's so much potential in LANs, WANs, sneakernet, (TV/radio/data) broadcast that goes untapped.
We're stuck here because right now telcos are a terrible market and the monopolies are granted at the wrong level; but also because we're assuming that getting direct, end-to-end connection from one of the big telcos is the only way to digitally communicate.
Is it really $50 per month for basic internet in New York?
In the UK https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/packages/ shows the cheapest broadband package - which includes telephone line rental - to be £18 per month (average across the contract when delivered router is included). That's around $25 (you can get "free" with a telephone service).
What struck me was the kid in the header image has a swanky new laptop, the story confirms the kids bring their laptops with them. Could they pay their neighbour $10 to leech the neighbours wifi? Do they need swanky laptops or just an internet appliance (my work computer is a 3rd hand toshiba on WinXP! - good enough for net+email)?
Do people in the USA tend to go to libraries for wifi rather than [near] to a cafe or other private business leaking free wifi?
> They’re there during the school year, too, even during the winter — it’s the only way they can complete their online math homework.
Why is there homework online? Has this been shown to be better in any way for children learning math or just a cop out by lazy teachers to be able to automatically grade the assignments?
I can't imagine learning math with anything besides a pencil and paper (yes even calculators are mostly bullshit).
What they don't talk about is the real struggle the less-literate face, even when they have access to computers.
I tried to teach a class on computers in my local library and that was often the hurdle. Adults who want 'computer training' are most excited about getting a job. But while it's easy to teach them to move the cursor and click on the browser, that doesn't do any good when they can't write enough to search, or read job descriptions, or write their resume.
A group of volunteers in Detroit are the pioneers in setting up mesh networks to provide connectivity to the poor. The recipe is to get some benefactors to sponsor one or two fiber connections, campaign with local businesses to open their connectivity and build a mesh network throughout the neighborhood.
I've met these people and have come away impressed and a little in awe of what they've done on - little or no money. They've also got some mean technical chops and have setup networks in other cities around the world like Brooklyn, Washington D.C. and India.
If you know anyone who is too poor for the Internet, if they live in public housing, please let them know about http://everyoneon.org/
This is a program that gives people in subsidized section 8 housing super cheap broadband. It's a bout $5 per month and gets you top quality broadband, such as a cable modem. Very similar to the old lifeline phone lines.
I'm genuinely curious as to why the kids aren't availing the FCC lifeline program. Can someone explain how and why a mechanism built to solve this exact problem isn't working, given that $7B was attributed to 3 communications related welfare programs by the FCC.
My local library is trying out a pilot program to loan out hotspots[0] the same way they loan out books. The hotspots have unlimited data and it looks like the only real restriction on them, beyond the usual stuff you'd get from a normal ISP, is that you bring them back after the loan period is up. Hopefully the pilot project results in a permanent program. Library cards are now free, so cost isn't a barrier anymore.
The City of Edmonton provides free WiFi[1] in a number of places[2], albeit with more restrictions. These mainly seem to be at rec centres and LRT stations, but there are also some parks included.
If someone in Edmonton didn't have internet access and needed it, it's available without too much trouble.
I'm torn about this. On the one hand it's clear that access to the Internet is almost as important as other utilies, such as clean water and heating oil.
On the other hand regulation is exactly how broadband rollout has been stifled in the past and present by incumbents, and is at least partly to blame why it's so expensive right now.
I want it deregulated and opened up to very serious competition. I also want our government to build reliable infrastructure (fiber) as much as is possible.
> I want it deregulated and opened up to very serious competition. I also want our government to build reliable infrastructure (fiber) as much as is possible.
I'm not surprised that you feel torn. Those desires are in direct contradiction with each other.
Even if you're referring to splitting infra from service, there will still be regulation. You'll also see law enforcement becoming very interested in the fact that interconnects and the last mile are now government property.
I question the premise. I cannot think of anything I do online at home that is essential to my being a productive member of society. 90% of my internet use at home is for entertainment. It's today's cable TV. It's not essential.
How do you think your life would be if you couldn't access the 10% that is not entertainment? I'll argue this stuff will at times be a large quality of life issue especially if you are poor.
Like others have said, governments are moving things online. Some things, though available in person, are too far for travel and telephone hours are short. If you are working a couple of jobs, you might miss some work just to do basic things, which is really detrimental. Even simple tax returns give money sooner, which might be the difference between someone having housing and not.
Utility companies have started to charge people more if they get a physical bill instead of online billing. Reduced or witholding installation charges if you sign up for internet, cable, or whatnot online.
Maybe you just need a phone number. Increasingly phone books are becoming rarer, so you might not have access. Or the number changed, or you need some governement phone number that isn't listed. Maybe you simply need hours or a doctor's phone number. Internet provides this more readily.
More and more companies are using online only applications. I worked for a pharmacy that simply did not take paper applications or CVs. They did not have a kiosk in the store.
Libraries are great for access, until they are out of your range or you don't have one in your township and have to pay for a card. Many smaller libraries have too few computers, a short time limit (30 minutes), and a lack of privacy. Plus there are transportation costs.
Such transportation costs actually are most detrimental to the poor.
Now, most folks will have the biggest gain in entertainment. But really, this helps you be more productive as well. You can make small talk at work, you can relax after the day, interact with family, and other such things. It is good for mental health in some respects.
Many government services are offered over the Internet. My county government has an app I use to request services. I find information about state government services such as motor vehicles. The school system has an extensive online portal for parents. They post grades there.
Sure you can do all this with no Internet. But it will take much longer, requiring phone calls or in person visits.
Plus, want to try applying for a job with no Internet?
A person with no Internet at home (or on a phone, etc.) is doomed to be much less productive.
I have a weird question: How come the kids congregate outside the library for the wifi? Is there a thing that you can't go in just to use the wifi? I used to do that all the time in college, didn't even have a card.
I relied on my public library for internet access for years ... luckily though, I had my own computer.
Do any libraries have some kind of persisted 'virtualized' environment that migrated between public-use machines?
For example, at the library I was at, you could not install software you needed - things were pretty locked down. And one day you may use machine #5, another day it might be machine #10.
Imagine you wanted to teach yourself programming. A few tools would need to be installed. I don't see how this would be possible in the library I was in (using public computers).
Why should one need a library card to use a library internet connection? Last time I used a public computer in the UK they were free for everyone with a time limit. But in Raleigh, NC, only registered card holders can use them.
"Today’s technology revolution promises to provide more information, more widely than ever. Yet we have left almost two million New Yorkers in the digital dark." - That is NYC, imagine Detroit, or Athens..
It's because of stuff like this that I thought facebook free basics in India wasn't such a bad idea. At least the kids there would have been able to get Wikipedia which you can learn most stuff from.
[+] [-] jawns|9 years ago|reply
They are, as this piece points out, very popular places to access computers and the Internet, and many libraries offer a wealth of digital content. I can check out and instantly download e-books and audiobooks and movies from my library.
It's certainly conceivable that they might have transitioned less well. There is, after all, a healthy amount of government bureaucracy in the public library system, and that tends to stymie innovation. And then there's just the pain of transition. Bookstores have felt those pains hard; it's not that people don't want content, but they want content in different forms, and a lot of bookstores just couldn't move fast enough.
But I'm really glad to see libraries continue to be generally healthy, and important community resources.
[+] [-] hiharryhere|9 years ago|reply
I also like the opportunity to get on with work in a quiet place without feeling obliged to buy a coffee.
[+] [-] chatmasta|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] distances|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blacksmith_tb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|9 years ago|reply
The SF central branch has a really good selection of programming/tech books. Also, having a library card enables access (as you note) to a wide selection of ebooks[1].
(I note, however, that the interface that you can use them through could use some redesign.)
[1] http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000005001
[+] [-] randyrand|9 years ago|reply
Libraries don't.
[+] [-] dilemma|9 years ago|reply
I'd say rather than people preferring digital, its the browsing and buying experience of the same old printed matter that needs to change for them to stay competitive. Bookstores have until now been little more than warehouses that store books, and let people walk in and buy them. That same function is done better by Amazon.
What an updated bookstore needs to be about is the experience: Curation and recommendations so that you can find books that you didn't know you'd love (this is invaluable), a nice environment that makes you want to go there and makes books feel exciting. It should also hold events - launches, readings, discussions, exhibitions, workshops. It has to be more than a warehouse, basically.
This encompasses retail for all industries: Experience, service, novelty.
[+] [-] gcb0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|9 years ago|reply
[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/4txauf/internet_cant...
[+] [-] bluedino|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walrus01|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kazinator|9 years ago|reply
Yes, but at the slight risk of sounding ridiculous. Libraries were computerized long before the "Internet age".
[+] [-] gumby|9 years ago|reply
The world really looks different if you only have a handheld device -- it's more read-only and because of caps and expensive mobile plans, you will use it less.
In cities there's a chance that libraries can help, but with rural poverty it's really a trap!
[+] [-] justinph|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolfgke|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drops|9 years ago|reply
Are american high prices the result of scummy pricing on the corporations' side or is it an actual infrastructural issue that prevents the ISPs from providing cheap connections to everyone?
[+] [-] Fej|9 years ago|reply
In the US, many people have only one choice for an Internet/TV/phone provider. Some have two choices. It is exceedingly rare to find a place with three choices.
Telecoms are typically granted local monopolies. As a result, they can charge pretty much what they want. And they do. Even in markets with a duopoly, companies very rarely attempt to beat each other on price, it's not in their best long-term interest to (but I doubt they are outright colluding).
The only places where it is more expensive than the norm to build out is in more rural areas... but the telecoms sometimes don't build out there at all, so some people are stuck with whatever they can get with a copper phone line, or satellite Internet if they can afford it (that's very expensive as well).
In my area - Optimum wants $50 for 60/25, plus $10 to rent a modem monthly, plus other taxes and fees (most of them made up) that are nigh impossible to find out beforehand. For TV and phone as well, $90 plus rental fees for the router and required boxes for each TV However, Optimum is terrible at my particular house, but we're one of the lucky ones who can choose Verizon as well. Verizon wants $70 for 100/100, reduced TV service, and phone, plus all the fees above. The telecoms push the bundles very hard.
As you can see, this shit's expensive (adds up to $130).
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
In Baltimore, I paid about $50 for a 50mbps connection, or about 20x more than a subway ticket. Sounds like the ratio is about the same order of magnitude in Ukraine.
[1] A telecom field technican in the U.S. makes about $6,000-$7,000 per month, plus benefits. That's about 20x what the average Ukrainian in Kiev makes (according to the Internet).
[2] Fares on D.C.'s metro, which similarly cover only about 50% of costs, range from $1.75 to $5.90(!).
[+] [-] crazydoggers|9 years ago|reply
Given your quoted numbers, the price in Ukraine is actually higher at 5% of a monthly salary.
Of course the US doesn't have a monthly minimum wage (not sure how that works in Ukraine) so many people in the US might only have part time jobs paying the minimum hourly wage, hence they make considerably less than $1200 a month.
[+] [-] __jal|9 years ago|reply
Combine that with large regions of low population density and a lot of land, and we have very little competition in the vast majority of the country.
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
In the US, we get the downside legacies of a monopoly without the benefit of government control.
The last mile and regional infrastructure (poles, mostly) is owned by private interests, who tend to be dicks about sharing. There's also a regulatory tension between the Federal government and state governments.
[+] [-] lake99|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanSrich|9 years ago|reply
I've lived in very affluent neighborhoods that have access to a single, shitty, ISP. So even when you can afford the inflated and outrageous prices you're still at the mercy of an incredibly corrupt and poor preforming corporation.
[+] [-] cema|9 years ago|reply
Of course, not all components of the prices translate proportionally. Salaries probably do, equipment probably does not.
[+] [-] walrus01|9 years ago|reply
2) A network engineeering position that might cost a company $115,000/year in the US could be filled for $35,000/year in Ukraine.
3) Eastern european ISPs are much more "Adventurous" in terms of the low cost network equipment they use for core infrastructure. $1500 Mikrotiks in the same role where a US ISP would use a $15,000 Ciscos or Juniper. Building five to six nines uptime core router POPs with fully redundant -48VDC A and B power is not cheap.
[+] [-] lumberjack|9 years ago|reply
Children in poverty often suffer from dysfunctional families that disrupt their studying and lack of life mentors to motivate them to pay attention in school.
If you could have supervised after school hours just for these kids to do their homework and maybe engage in a bit of self learning it would be much more useful than having home internet access.
[+] [-] niftich|9 years ago|reply
In every case, the person consuming these resources either:
[a] pays for them on their own
[b] is provided them but paid by someone else, possibly in aggregate (family, government services, charity)
[c] not provided them at all, in which case they are no longer a productive member of society (or worse, near-starving, starving, or dead)
Ethics and economic systems notwithstanding, the first few are 'hard problems' that humanity has struggled with for millennia. Internet access is comparatively easy, because the marginal costs of distribution are low, but just like other 'utilities' and 'necessities', the capital cost is high.
One way to offset this is to create a market like for electricity, where multiple players, some private, some government-owned, compete at the supply-side and distribution-side, to provide capacity at prices that are close to the cost of (production+transmission) for the area.
Luckily, unlike electricity, water, food, or shelter, information can be duplicated, format-shifted, batched, compressed, time-delayed, and the like. If fixed-fiber-based Internet to arbitrary endpoints is too expensive despite the presence of a market, cache or store more content closer to the consumer on CDNs. If last-mile distribution is too expensive, switch to a different last-mile distribution paradigm -- this latter one is what public libraries (and public hotspots) currently accomplish. If bi-directional communication is desired, investigate peer-to-peer solutions. There's so much potential in LANs, WANs, sneakernet, (TV/radio/data) broadcast that goes untapped.
We're stuck here because right now telcos are a terrible market and the monopolies are granted at the wrong level; but also because we're assuming that getting direct, end-to-end connection from one of the big telcos is the only way to digitally communicate.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|9 years ago|reply
In the UK https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/packages/ shows the cheapest broadband package - which includes telephone line rental - to be £18 per month (average across the contract when delivered router is included). That's around $25 (you can get "free" with a telephone service).
What struck me was the kid in the header image has a swanky new laptop, the story confirms the kids bring their laptops with them. Could they pay their neighbour $10 to leech the neighbours wifi? Do they need swanky laptops or just an internet appliance (my work computer is a 3rd hand toshiba on WinXP! - good enough for net+email)?
Do people in the USA tend to go to libraries for wifi rather than [near] to a cafe or other private business leaking free wifi?
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
Why is there homework online? Has this been shown to be better in any way for children learning math or just a cop out by lazy teachers to be able to automatically grade the assignments?
I can't imagine learning math with anything besides a pencil and paper (yes even calculators are mostly bullshit).
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|9 years ago|reply
I tried to teach a class on computers in my local library and that was often the hurdle. Adults who want 'computer training' are most excited about getting a job. But while it's easy to teach them to move the cursor and click on the browser, that doesn't do any good when they can't write enough to search, or read job descriptions, or write their resume.
[+] [-] rmason|9 years ago|reply
https://www.alliedmedia.org/dctp/digitalstewards
A group of volunteers in Detroit are the pioneers in setting up mesh networks to provide connectivity to the poor. The recipe is to get some benefactors to sponsor one or two fiber connections, campaign with local businesses to open their connectivity and build a mesh network throughout the neighborhood.
I've met these people and have come away impressed and a little in awe of what they've done on - little or no money. They've also got some mean technical chops and have setup networks in other cities around the world like Brooklyn, Washington D.C. and India.
[+] [-] VonGuard|9 years ago|reply
This is a program that gives people in subsidized section 8 housing super cheap broadband. It's a bout $5 per month and gets you top quality broadband, such as a cable modem. Very similar to the old lifeline phone lines.
[+] [-] kyleblarson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mankash666|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mister_Snuggles|9 years ago|reply
The City of Edmonton provides free WiFi[1] in a number of places[2], albeit with more restrictions. These mainly seem to be at rec centres and LRT stations, but there are also some parks included.
If someone in Edmonton didn't have internet access and needed it, it's available without too much trouble.
[0] http://www.epl.ca/hotspots/
[1] http://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/open-wifi.aspx
[2] https://data.edmonton.ca/Facilities-and-Structures/Open-City...
[+] [-] matt_wulfeck|9 years ago|reply
On the other hand regulation is exactly how broadband rollout has been stifled in the past and present by incumbents, and is at least partly to blame why it's so expensive right now.
I want it deregulated and opened up to very serious competition. I also want our government to build reliable infrastructure (fiber) as much as is possible.
[+] [-] __jal|9 years ago|reply
I'm not surprised that you feel torn. Those desires are in direct contradiction with each other.
Even if you're referring to splitting infra from service, there will still be regulation. You'll also see law enforcement becoming very interested in the fact that interconnects and the last mile are now government property.
[+] [-] ams6110|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Broken_Hippo|9 years ago|reply
Like others have said, governments are moving things online. Some things, though available in person, are too far for travel and telephone hours are short. If you are working a couple of jobs, you might miss some work just to do basic things, which is really detrimental. Even simple tax returns give money sooner, which might be the difference between someone having housing and not.
Utility companies have started to charge people more if they get a physical bill instead of online billing. Reduced or witholding installation charges if you sign up for internet, cable, or whatnot online.
Maybe you just need a phone number. Increasingly phone books are becoming rarer, so you might not have access. Or the number changed, or you need some governement phone number that isn't listed. Maybe you simply need hours or a doctor's phone number. Internet provides this more readily.
More and more companies are using online only applications. I worked for a pharmacy that simply did not take paper applications or CVs. They did not have a kiosk in the store.
Libraries are great for access, until they are out of your range or you don't have one in your township and have to pay for a card. Many smaller libraries have too few computers, a short time limit (30 minutes), and a lack of privacy. Plus there are transportation costs.
Such transportation costs actually are most detrimental to the poor.
Now, most folks will have the biggest gain in entertainment. But really, this helps you be more productive as well. You can make small talk at work, you can relax after the day, interact with family, and other such things. It is good for mental health in some respects.
[+] [-] int_19h|9 years ago|reply
“Poor?” said Cordelia, bewildered. “No electricity? How can it be on the com network?”
“It’s not, of course,” answered Vorkosigan.
“Then how can anybody get their schooling?”
“They don’t.”
Cordelia stared. “I don’t understand. How do they get their jobs?”
“A few escape to the Service. The rest prey on each other, mostly.” Vorkosigan regarded her face uneasily. “Have you no poverty on Beta Colony?”
“Poverty? Well, some people have more money than others, of course, but . . . no comconsoles?”
Vorkosigan was diverted from his interrogation. “Is not owning a comconsole the lowest standard of living you can imagine?” he said in wonder.
“It’s the first article in the constitution. ‘Access to information shall not be abridged.’ ”
[+] [-] massysett|9 years ago|reply
Sure you can do all this with no Internet. But it will take much longer, requiring phone calls or in person visits.
Plus, want to try applying for a job with no Internet?
A person with no Internet at home (or on a phone, etc.) is doomed to be much less productive.
[+] [-] darpa_escapee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpindar|9 years ago|reply
>my internet use at home
I'm guessing you're able to use the internet at work or school?
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FussyZeus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clumsysmurf|9 years ago|reply
Do any libraries have some kind of persisted 'virtualized' environment that migrated between public-use machines?
For example, at the library I was at, you could not install software you needed - things were pretty locked down. And one day you may use machine #5, another day it might be machine #10.
Imagine you wanted to teach yourself programming. A few tools would need to be installed. I don't see how this would be possible in the library I was in (using public computers).
[+] [-] kwhitefoot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] compil3r|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|9 years ago|reply