Philadelphia's citywide WiFi close to shutting down

It'd be absolutely spectacular to actually see one of these admittedly ambitious municipal WiFi projects actually work out every now and then, but instead, we're seeing the nails start to sink into yet another citywide WiFi coffin. This go 'round, the network blanketing most of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is on the verge of sending out its last signals unless the city can devise a plan in short order to take it over from EarthLink, who unsurprisingly wants out on the double. Unfortunately, we don't have a great feeling about the system's future -- history has a way of forecasting, you know?

[Via CNET, image courtesy of Stippling]

[vdogg89 @ May 10th 2008 11:52PM]

:(

[Flashpoint @ May 11th 2008 12:03AM]

The way I see it, Wifi should have a small amount of bandwidth DEDICATED TO ANY USER.

Why should I have to drive around searching for wifi signals when there are WEP locked signals permeating me that I could have a small amount of bandwidth for.

I think they could do this, make it only allow access to certain things like the basic internet - and keep people from abusing it to play games and download porn.

I have a software which can break WEP and WPA encryption (by constantly pinging the router until it decodes the encryption [takes over a million packets] but I'd hate to steal people's wifi, I should be able to just use a little of it.

[Steve @ May 11th 2008 12:20AM]

Link plz?

[ByronGman @ May 11th 2008 12:26AM]

While I admit the future you paint sounds wonderful

1. The fact that you can steal my internet does not give you a right to it.

2. Who downloads porn? Websites as easy to view as this one serve just fine.

3. Ergo you can do pretty much anything using "basic internet".

4. Ergo the majority of people would have their needs satisfied by basic internet.

5. Ergo, under your plan the majority of people would simply stop buying internet service since they could leach off neighbors.

6. Ergo the number of actual subscribers would shrink to those who like to play games, while the rest of you overload our routers.

7. Ergo the future is not as bright as you paint it.

[Juaquin @ May 11th 2008 12:32AM]

You have a software that can break WEP/WPA encryption? Really? I had no idea such a thing existed!

[feffrey @ May 11th 2008 1:36AM]

actually wep is very easy to break but wpa is a lot harder. (and more time consuming)
there is a specific linux distro that is built just for doing this, but it requires that the nic use a certain chip.

oh did i mention that it is highly illegal to use?

[jollyllama @ May 11th 2008 1:49AM]

@ByronGman:

Look, I know having numbered points and using words like "ergo" usually is enough to win arguments on the internet, but I've got to call you on this one. The there are two important things about stealing people's bandwidth:

1. You don't pay per kilobyte, you pay per month, thus unused bandwidth is wasted, and
2. Most people are only actively using the internet about 10% of the time (I say most people, not most people who are in the comments threads on Engadget)

Thus, using someone's bandwidth 90% of the time only rips off the cable/phone companies, something I have *absolutely* no problem with. It makes about as much sense for an appartment building to have 15 DSL lines for 15 people to browse the 'net as it does for an office to buy a photocopy machine for every cubicle. The only people who benefit from the current system are the corps that sell you the cable/dsl lines.

[Benson @ May 11th 2008 2:07AM]

Doesn't matter who benefits from the way it is, or who gets "ripped off".

There's two points (without numbers or latin):

A. My router is my router, and I'll set it up however I please, to distribute the internet service I pay for however I like. Regardless of whether it would save you a couple hours with the rainbow tables (Oh, and my PSK isn't in there, so don't bother...) or make you really happy or hurt the cable company or even fail to hurt me 91% of the time, it's mine, and I'll decide what to do with it. (If you're worried about 91%: 90% of the time I'm off, 1% I'm on, but you're off, and 9% we're both on.)

B. We'd be a lot worse off if that happened, except that most of us would have saved money by not buying service; but we'd all (even the ones still paying for service) have much worse service... So it's not so hot!

That's all, and your corporation-hate, lack of ethics, and whatever else doesn't have any bearing on that.

[Jon Doe. @ May 11th 2008 2:15AM]

If someone has security enabled they ARE telling you to stay out. No different then breaking into someone's house to use the toilet. You may not be stealing anything but its their property and you aren't invited. Likewise I have a secured network and you hack it there are a whole hell of a lot of things that can occure. First off what happens if your system is infected with a worm? You now just brought it onto my network. You now have access to the systems on my network...I have them password protected but still. If you are some bastard who enjoys kiddy porn and go to a gov honey pot ( http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html ) guess who's door they will knock on?
In short I catch someone on my protected network that says stay the hell out and I catch you outside my house I'll take a fracking rebar to your car's hood. Now if I leave my network open, or create a VLAN for you to play in fine, more power to you. But unless its an open network, in which case people have no right to complain, they have no business breaking into someone's network.

[Jamar @ May 11th 2008 2:22AM]

I think that's a great idea. That would be an alternative to municipal Wi-fi. If you share your Wi-Fi then the city would give a tax-break; it would be better than a dedicated network of Wi-Fi routers.

[ByronGman @ May 11th 2008 3:35AM]

@Jamar

Your idea makes more sense, since you are choosing to allow people on to your network (i.e. not much different from leaving it unsecure if you don't care who uses it). Tax break thing is a cool idea too...

@ Jollyllama

So who determined that I should be the one paying for the service while the rest of you "rip off the man" at my expense? I am contracting the line not you, so you are still stealing when you use it. I am paying for the service and if I want to share I will. But if I don't I shouldn't be forced to give you some and compromise my line for your benefit.

Even without the use of the word ergo I still make a better argument.

[Steve Jones @ May 11th 2008 5:11AM]

So I guess most of you fucktards haven't realised that if enough people start leaching and not paying then the ISP's will jack up the prices for the rest of us to make up for the downfall. Nice thinking, idiots.

[Zorque @ May 11th 2008 5:49AM]

Why should people have to accept you driving around using people's signals? Just because they're not using their bandwidth doesn't give you a right to it. If you lost your sight would it be okay for someone to steal your TV since you weren't using it? Using other people's networks without permission, secured or not, is illegal in quite a few places and I hope you get caught.

[The Hater @ May 11th 2008 9:17AM]

By your reasoning you should also leave your car unlocked, so that strangers can drive small distances to run errands... or leave your door open so they can eat a little bit of your food out of your refrigerator when they're hungry... or keep your ATM card on the counter next to the machine, so they can use a little bit of your money.

No one owes you free Wi-Fi... if they leave their network open (intentionally or not) then thats one thing... but cracking their encryption then justifying it by saying "It should be free" makes your an asshole and a scum bag.

Buy an EVDO card you filthy scrub.

Almost nothing is free... and you're never going to use MY WiFi.

[rv @ May 11th 2008 12:53PM]

Yes, fuck you guys. You shouldn't be able to use it. Why? BECAUSE I BOUGHT THE FUCKING ROUTER AND PAY FOR THE SERVICE!

[Vince @ May 11th 2008 3:35PM]

KisMAC, a Mac port of Kismet for Linux, is a Network utility that includes some interesting tools for decryption and network cracking. Its main function is that of a utility, with the ability to connect a USB GPS device.

And my network shall remain in WEP mode with a long, random passcode. If you have enough time to sit outside my house and decode my password, then I'll have enough time to crack your machine and delete your System folder (Home folder if you're on a Mac).

[Aaron @ May 11th 2008 12:29AM]

Honestly, Philadelphia's free wifi was piss-poor at best. I could tether my cellphone and get much better speeds and lower latency (and that's on a 2-year-old Samsung A900 using EVDO Rev. 0). I understand how nice it is to have free wifi anywhere, but with the connection being so sketchy, and with speeds not even matching dial-up, it's not too hard to say goodbye.

Now then again, I go to Penn and have access to blazing broadband, and I understand that people using Philly's free wifi don't (making this a bit of a biased viewpoint). Even so, the entire system needs to be rethunk if they expect people to use it; anything less than 250kb/s is just about useless, and the latency needs to stay under about 200ms.

This is a sad day for municipal wifi, but at least in Philly's implementation, it's not very practical.

[Kurian @ May 11th 2008 12:38AM]

Bah good it failed.
The only city wide WiFi I'd be interested in is one where the all the accesspoints in the city act like repeaters. Hence the whole city is one big LAN.

We should be able to find servers to game on under the LAN tab.

[Jon Doe. @ May 11th 2008 2:16AM]

Brilliant idea. Now all the infected zombie systems have access to every other system on the network. BRILLIANT!

[Kurian @ May 11th 2008 5:37AM]

If you're a moron, you won't know how to set it up anyway. Any decently configured is relatively safe.

I'm pretty sure my computer is invulnerable to all but some new zero day attack.

[wmspider @ May 11th 2008 7:10AM]

Hm... ok.
First, go to wikipedia and lookup how wifi works, and how much bandwith it can serve.
Then think about 10000 clients trying to connect to THE SAME WiFi network (since they're all repeaters). Great idea! :P

[Kurian @ May 12th 2008 3:49AM]

Ok I forgot that repeater bandwidth is shared. Instead they could just use access point-cum-switches, and join them via cable. That way each accesspoint will provide full WiFi bandwidth. The cabled switches dont suffer from the bandwidth sharing problem.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ May 11th 2008 1:19AM]

Philadelphia Public WiFi, Another socialist failure.

[ethana2 @ May 11th 2008 1:21AM]

Bah, it just means wifi isn't a good enough tech for that to be truly feasible.

[Jon Doe. @ May 11th 2008 2:24AM]

Be sure to pass up that SOCIAL security check when you get close to retiring, unless you are another Republican hypocrite, which there are plenty of those out there now a days.
Contrary to the clueless in this country the word socialist is not a 4 letter word and isn't inherently evil. Yes socialism in its pure state is fracked up. As is pretty much every other ism on the planet. However socialism mixed with other isms allows people to avoid getting stomped on by the arrogant asshats in society who thinks that a 10K medical bill should be paid off in 4 easy installments, or that being fired 4 days before retirement is "tough luck". Or that medical insurance is a luxury.

[ethana2 @ May 11th 2008 3:06AM]

And you can be socialist and vote republican. Representing.

I long for direct meritocratic omniarchy and a set of laws that wasn't founded before the advent of modern IT.

[aurispector @ May 11th 2008 7:50AM]

@ethana2

"Thou shalt not kill" not good enough for you? Sometimes, conservatisim means recognizing that the folks that came before us knew things that are still important.

If, by "meritocratic omniarchy" you mean a sort of "government by diggs" I shall have to hunt you down and kill you.

[happy_penguin @ May 11th 2008 2:32PM]

"Jon Doe. @ May 11th 2008 2:24AM
Be sure to pass up that SOCIAL security check when you get close to retiring, unless you are another Republican hypocrite"

There's nothing hypocritical about taking payments from a system which you pay into even if you don't agree with the principle. It is in fact, your money.

[Vince @ May 11th 2008 3:39PM]

Hmm, I'm sure you're way smarter than George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They were just a bunch of religious, conservative rich guys, right? They just wanted more money, and creating the longest-standing government in the world just helped them make more $$$, right?

You people should try reading history someday, not "History" text books. It's rather enlightening.

[The_Steven @ May 11th 2008 11:01PM]

Public Schools
Free Library
Postal Delivery
Police Force
Street Lights
Prisons (for the deserving)

(and in some areas)
Fire Fighters
Garbage Colection, ....

Yep, lotza reasons to hate Socialism... Think Before You Breed!

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ May 12th 2008 2:17AM]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property was the original proposed phrase that sparked one of the first heated debates in early American history. The founding fathers (Franklin and I believe also Jefferson*) argued that slaves were considered property and believed it that southern states would use it to justify Slavery which they opposed and after some argument it was changed from Property to pursuit of happiness, believing all men including slaves had an (eventual) right to happiness and set forth the motion in 1850's-1860's to free black men and grant them their Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Socialism, is Government provision of Life's Three Essential Needs- Food Clothing, and Shelter.

Governments Job is to provide Law, Order, Justice, to Protect it's citizens rights, liberty, property, and up hold the constitution. Prisons and police force is necessary to uphold those governmental duties. Fire Fighting is necessary governmental duty to protect it's citizens and their property from danger. With out it anarchy would have overthrown the constitution. Public schools were implemented to encourage competitive economic innovation with the great foreign powers of the day. An educated population was necessary in order to have a successful and stable democracy. Libraries are equally important, Voters who cannot read the news or make intelligent decisions, would not be able to sustain democracy. The postal service is necessary and mandated in by the founding fathers as a means of democratic communication between the government and it's citizens. Nothing else.

Don't confuse taxes with socialism. The Louisiana Purchase wasn't socialism and roads fall under the same context or concept the emancipation proclamation and was to spur private economic development and improve governments ability to do it's most basic duties.

The founding fathers were deeply opposed to government intervention in private life and that is just what socialism does. It was never the governments duty to intervene in natural disasters and was never the case until Roosevelt took office. When a flood disaster hit under his administration, he was the first president in history to send federal support. When the first federal workers showed up, the local population was very appalled to find government obtrusion in what was considered a highly private matter. When Roosevelt Socialist farm policy struck again, the farmers and citizens nation wide were outraged and very weary of government intent and many refused to accept help or allow the government to step foot on their property despite the terrible conditions of the 1930's.

Socialism, is failed policy, it failed Russia, Germany, is breaking the backs of Canada, France, and is causing Japan's Healthcare system to near collapse. Canadians come to America for life saving care, even Canada's own director of health left for California because she could not get decent care under her own watch. Japanese doctors get paid near minimum wage to perform major operations and hospitals are ready to close the doors for good. Such ideas were born in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany and has no place in America. It is the duty to protect your life from criminal danger, protect individual liberty, and uphold your civil rights. Nothing else. You are responsible for you.

No where in the constitution does it say you are entitled to free government auto repair, free cars, free homes, free computers, free TVs, free Caviar (expensive, I shouldnt have to pay for it), free gold teeth for your infant, or socialist (not) free health care. The US Government cannot even manage Walter Reed, no less a nationwide system. Such Nazi-socialist policies are against the intent of those great American men born over 250 years ago and have died ever since then to protect their beliefs inscribed in to The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence.




Footnote:
*Jefferson owned slaves but was opposed to slavery. Yes, he was a conflicted man but eventual wanted freedom for all men.

Engadget limits you 3 links per post.

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/9acf1ed9d129fee785256dfe005981fd?OpenDocument

Somewhere deep in this Library of Congress Flickr pool, you will find photos of describing citizens outrage over government intervention. I'll post a better link when I can find it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/sets/72157603671370361/

Socialist Healthcare sounds great but just like socialist wifi, it will soon fail.
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=89626309&m=89631322

And remember, last time we were over taxed we to war over excessive tea tax.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ May 12th 2008 2:26AM]

"Don't confuse taxes with socialism. The Louisiana Purchase wasn't socialism and roads fall under the same context or concept the emancipation proclamation and was to spur private economic development and improve governments ability to do it's most basic duties."

Correction:

Don't confuse taxes with socialism. The Louisiana Purchase wasn't socialism and roads fall under the same context or similar concept as the emancipation proclamation and was created to spur (encourage) private economic development and improve the governments ability to do it's most basic duties.

[ethana2 @ May 11th 2008 1:21AM]

WiMax will be different, it's designed for the kind of thing they're trying to do.

I have clearwire service now, works fine, 'cept they block my torrent uploads.

[Rotaryknight @ May 11th 2008 1:39AM]

I was about to get the earthlink wifi that philly was running last year. Tethering on a tmobile network sucks so much balls last year. So slow!!

BTW, the wifi that was running in Philly isnt free, its about 20 a month from earthlink. With that you get I think 1mb up and down.

[ayvegh @ May 11th 2008 1:44AM]

As a Philly resident I will just say that the whole thing was a bust from the beginning.

I never left Starbucks :)

[dBs @ May 11th 2008 2:19AM]

So you must not be using an iPhone then.

[gorichgo @ May 11th 2008 2:16AM]

One word on why this happened: Cumcastic!

[David Litsky @ May 11th 2008 3:02AM]

The City of Philadelphia should contract Sprint to provide wireless modems to its residents.

[happy_penguin @ May 11th 2008 2:33PM]

Comcrap can suck it.

[dBs @ May 11th 2008 2:41AM]

That's a pretty skyline shot BTW. Wonder if you know of a higher res for that?

[dBs @ May 11th 2008 2:44AM]

Never mind, got it!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://stippling.org/albums/Philadelphia/Philadelphia_Skyline.jpg&imgrefurl=http://stippling.org/gallery/Philadelphia/Philadelphia_Skyline&h=2000&w=3008&sz=2666&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=9c-YO9f2v7AEsM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphiladelphia%2Bskyline%26imgsz%3Dhuge%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

[Ben @ May 11th 2008 4:36AM]

Philly's wifi wasn't free, it cost something around 20 bucks a month and it was awful. It felt like the entire city was going through one 802.11b router. If they had made this a bit more reliable as well as come up with a cost plan to actually encourage people to use it as a "backup" rather than as their primary ISP, it could've worked. However, there are enough free spots around philly that I never found myself even thinking twice about connecting to it.

[dhowse @ May 11th 2008 7:35AM]

I have to disagree that a little socialism or limited socialism is OK. History has proven that when you do not let the market work there will be unintended consequences. The medical example above is a case in point. If medical care was treated as a service like anything else and govt. stayed out of it you wouldn't have $10,000 medical bills for simple procedures. Allowing a free market in health care would dramatically rduce costs. The current system with set govt. rates encourages inefficiency. And don't give me the "health care is a right" BS. You as a human being have the "right" to pay taxes and die. Anything above and beyond that is of your own making. Don't want to buy insurance (health, life, car, etc...) then you take your chances.

Getting back to the subject. Why should GOVERNMENT be providing a service that can and is provided in the comercial marketplace? This was a bad idea from the start. Glad to see it failing. Nay chance the socialists will learn from this? Doubtful.

[aurispector @ May 11th 2008 8:12AM]

@dhowse

As a "health care provider" I have to say that although free markets are indeed the most efficient, there are times that morality has to trump economics. What do you want to use as a determinant of success in a health care system; the level of care or the cost?

Ironically, what's wrong with the US health care system isn't government, at least not in and of itself. It's the lack of incentive on the part of the patient/consumer to shop for both price and quality of care. Our insurance system isolates the patient from both by "covering" costs and directing patients to insurance company selected practitioners. The patient thus has little or no choice as to whom is providing care and never sees a bill. The Docs waste their time and money filing and refiling claims only to be paid a pittance by the insurance companies. Unfortunately, applying unrestricted free market pressure to this system is completely immoral since people die without care. With regard to health care I'm basically a communist: to each what they need, from each what they can afford.

That being said, WiFi service is a completely different animal and I agree with you completely. Pure market forces are killing municipal WiFi. I know some people involved: I even own a "Philly wifi" t-shirt, which I wear for the irony. Although the cost isn't bad, the service is spotty and the market provides many better alternatives.

[Aquen @ May 11th 2008 8:52AM]

Socialism in a limited implementation in this country is, and always will be, a good thing. Why? Because it protects the citizens Without limited socialism being implemented during the Great Depression, this country would still be recovering financially (I fully understand that the Second World War also greatly contributed to our economic recovery, but programs implemented to offset the Depression aided the country greatly too). If you have such a huge problem with Socialism, then I implore you to find a way back to the Pre-FDR Depression, and see if you have ANY financial security. The programs and shift in ideals away from pure, Calvin Coolidge-style laissez faire capitalism is what makes our country work in a modern day setting.

[Jonathan @ May 11th 2008 1:20PM]

Exactly how our current health care system socialist? Compared to who? In fact, it's the exact opposite. Look at Canada's healthcare system or Britain's NHS or any number of European countries. They seem to be making it work pretty well.

Health care IS a right. You're auto insurance example just underscores that fact. If auto insurance wasn't mandatory, how many people would drive around thinking "I'm a safe driver, I won't get into any accidents" just so they can skimp on their insurance premium? TONS. I can tell you from experience, just about everyone thinks they're a great driver.

What happens if you get into an accident with one of these people on the road without insurance? Think about it.

[Rob @ May 11th 2008 5:02PM]

Actually, the United States has the least efficient health care system of any developed country:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/89
http://texasimpact.org/spending+more

[Rob @ May 11th 2008 5:05PM]

(All other developed countries have far more governmental control and are generally much more socialist.)

[Peter @ May 11th 2008 7:35AM]

The really stupid thing about the Philly project is that they offer free wi-fi to low income people and everyone else pays for it. The idea is to help the poor people cross the "digital divide." But how many really poor people have computers and no Internet access?

[L.Rawlins @ May 11th 2008 7:35AM]

This was never going to work in mainstream America. Capitalism is all you know.

The most open thing you've got right now is the internet, and many of your ISP's and media corps. are now trying to capitalise on/lockdown that.