it would certainly change A LOT for the industry. although, i'm not sure how that model would work in terms of privacy. as a free network of that magnitude would probably need targeted advertising to support it.
what would be interesting is if a wimax-like service became a public utility (like electricity or water). you'd still have to pay, but hopefully you'd have your privacy.
It would definitely change the way certain companies operate, especially cable companies that offer all-in-one, and somewhat monopolistic, packages. Plus, the money we spend/save on internet can be put to economic circulation elsewhere.
Free, high speed wireless internet would be the most significant technological push since broadcast television and should be looked at in the same context.As broadcast television opened up the world to "the world" at large the internet, due to its interactive nature, has 10x the capability to bring people and ideas together that television could never accomplish as a one way "push" medium. Just as it's unthinkable nowadays that people would not have access to free broadcast televission, it should be equally unthinkable that people not have free access to the internet, especially as its becoming the medium of choice for access to news, information, recreation and communication.
I believe a free, wireless, high-speed Internet network is an unrealistic concept, given that nothing is truly free. Somewhere, the costs of such a network have to be covered.
Would universal apprently-free access change everything? It would change some things, but not everything.. Large numbers of people already spend larger amounts of time accessing the Internet on a pay-as-they-go basis.
What such access would do is make for more convenience for those of us who either cannot afford or will not budget for such access.
Given the rudeness we already see with people using their cell phones and Blackberries at inappropriate times and in inappropriate places, the downside would be more of this kind of activity. And more grey hairs for we who lead our "packs", as the rude arrogant members of our 'gang' use their tools as toys during meetings.
"Change Everything" is too vast a way to describe it but yes some new services will start and it will modify some current ways of doing things. There will still be a very last majority of things that will be left untouched.
It would make us less likely to interact with other live people but instead to IM or twitter them. Shut off the net and go for a walk with another person, talk and LISTEN.
No, no, no. Ubiquitous, free wireless does not work in the USA. Repeat, it does not work, that is the desired benefits are not realized.
What it would do is create a market for the hardware, infrastructure and site placements, and quite a few jobs for installers.
Otherwise vast swathes of the network would go un or underutilized most of the time.
The billions already spent, and the billions about to be spent by wireless carriers and telecoms on mobile internet (and eventually wimax) are the reality. EVDO, HSDPA et al trump the limited range and clumsy of wifi.
Nick Braak
Analyst and a fan of Broadband in all forms
It could make a big difference to rural areas where wired access to broadband is problematical due to distances from the exchange. However, I suspect if this were to be developed it would for a long time be chiefly city-based.
No it would only exacerbate the already bad services that are paid for and tolerated by all,if it is free then it would be government controlled,or some non-profit entity beholding to the government for approval and funding.Hot-spot are worth a damn as far as staying connected is concerned if you are out of range then you S**T of of luck. Lower the cost for broadband where even the poorest college student can afford it make it more reliable for businesses and the average citizen,improve service feedback and hardware and TA-DA!
I think it would change things as it would allow individuals who didn't necessarily have access to the internet, service BUT how will this be funded? I know advertising. Now, I'm in marketing, but I really wonder if we want to have that kind of network...
15 Total
May 30, 2008 at 10:04am by justin powell
it would certainly change A LOT for the industry. although, i'm not sure how that model would work in terms of privacy. as a free network of that magnitude would probably need targeted advertising to support it.
what would be interesting is if a wimax-like service became a public utility (like electricity or water). you'd still have to pay, but hopefully you'd have your privacy.
May 30, 2008 at 11:07am by Fast Company staff
The FCC is considering just such a plan. More information can be found at http://tinyurl.com/43jsgu
May 30, 2008 at 11:14am by Rachel King
It would definitely change the way certain companies operate, especially cable companies that offer all-in-one, and somewhat monopolistic, packages. Plus, the money we spend/save on internet can be put to economic circulation elsewhere.
May 30, 2008 at 12:11pm by Chase Wegmann
Free, high speed wireless internet would be the most significant technological push since broadcast television and should be looked at in the same context.As broadcast television opened up the world to "the world" at large the internet, due to its interactive nature, has 10x the capability to bring people and ideas together that television could never accomplish as a one way "push" medium. Just as it's unthinkable nowadays that people would not have access to free broadcast televission, it should be equally unthinkable that people not have free access to the internet, especially as its becoming the medium of choice for access to news, information, recreation and communication.
May 30, 2008 at 12:54pm by Carel Two-Eagle
I believe a free, wireless, high-speed Internet network is an unrealistic concept, given that nothing is truly free. Somewhere, the costs of such a network have to be covered.
Would universal apprently-free access change everything? It would change some things, but not everything.. Large numbers of people already spend larger amounts of time accessing the Internet on a pay-as-they-go basis.
What such access would do is make for more convenience for those of us who either cannot afford or will not budget for such access.
Given the rudeness we already see with people using their cell phones and Blackberries at inappropriate times and in inappropriate places, the downside would be more of this kind of activity. And more grey hairs for we who lead our "packs", as the rude arrogant members of our 'gang' use their tools as toys during meetings.
May 30, 2008 at 1:28pm by Syamant Sandhir
"Change Everything" is too vast a way to describe it but yes some new services will start and it will modify some current ways of doing things. There will still be a very last majority of things that will be left untouched.
May 30, 2008 at 4:48pm by Matt McCoy
Depends on coverage - if it reached into rural areas, yes. If it is restricted to urban wi-fi gluts, no.
May 30, 2008 at 7:36pm by David Gibson
It would make us less likely to interact with other live people but instead to IM or twitter them. Shut off the net and go for a walk with another person, talk and LISTEN.
May 30, 2008 at 11:49pm by nick
No, no, no. Ubiquitous, free wireless does not work in the USA. Repeat, it does not work, that is the desired benefits are not realized.
What it would do is create a market for the hardware, infrastructure and site placements, and quite a few jobs for installers.
Otherwise vast swathes of the network would go un or underutilized most of the time.
The billions already spent, and the billions about to be spent by wireless carriers and telecoms on mobile internet (and eventually wimax) are the reality. EVDO, HSDPA et al trump the limited range and clumsy of wifi.
Nick Braak
Analyst and a fan of Broadband in all forms
May 31, 2008 at 8:46am by kiona pope
Yes it would because I need to talk more to my friends.
May 31, 2008 at 8:46am by kiona pope
Why doesn't work in the usa.
May 31, 2008 at 8:49am by kiona pope
SO are people signing up in the fast company.
May 31, 2008 at 12:29pm by David Murray
It could make a big difference to rural areas where wired access to broadband is problematical due to distances from the exchange. However, I suspect if this were to be developed it would for a long time be chiefly city-based.
May 31, 2008 at 4:55pm by Kenneth Robinson
No it would only exacerbate the already bad services that are paid for and tolerated by all,if it is free then it would be government controlled,or some non-profit entity beholding to the government for approval and funding.Hot-spot are worth a damn as far as staying connected is concerned if you are out of range then you S**T of of luck. Lower the cost for broadband where even the poorest college student can afford it make it more reliable for businesses and the average citizen,improve service feedback and hardware and TA-DA!
June 1, 2008 at 2:03pm by Laura Betterly
I think it would change things as it would allow individuals who didn't necessarily have access to the internet, service BUT how will this be funded? I know advertising. Now, I'm in marketing, but I really wonder if we want to have that kind of network...