You are on our old blog. Click here to go to our new, improved, blog.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

More on Free Broadband

I got curious today, and I contacted Denis of AnchorFree Wireless (the folks who are starting free wireless internet in the Marina), to try to find out why they are rolling out their wireless service in the Marina, and he let me in on his company's reasoning:
We decided to launch our first wireless Internet "hotzone" on Chestnut Street in the Marina for several reasons:

1) Enough places to use wireless

-We felt that there are enough locations for individuals to use the wireless Internet access in a relatively small area. There are about 15 locations where individuals can sit down and use the Internet wirelessly.

2) It is away from downtown

-We fully support Mayor Newsom's vision of free Wi-Fi for every citizen, however we do not want to compete with him, which is why we decided on launching in an area far from downtown.

3) Students contacted us

-Numerous students contacted us after we launched our Palo Alto hotzone showing their support for what we were doing and asking us to expand to the city. We asked them to list for us their favorite hang out scenes. Chestnut was consistently towards the top. While the residents of Chestnut can certainly afford wireless Internet, students who hang out there cannot.
He also pointed out that I was too harsh on his company's efforts in my first post. I think he's right. I should have made it clear that I think it's great that his company is providing free internet for San Franciscans. My original point was (or was supposed to be), that if we depend on companies like AnchorFree to provide us all with broadband, the coverage will not be universal. And that the economic incentives are for them to cover wealthier neighborhoods, first if not exclusively.

Denis went on to invite LeftInSF readers to help AnchorFree figure out what other neighborhoods to cover:
I read your post and considering that we made it free and in contrast, multi-national corporations like T-Mobile charge $40 per month and only make starbucks wireless, I think you were a little harsh on us. Having said that, I invite you and your readership to e-mail me a list of locations they would like to see "wireless" with the following criteria:

1) Lots of places to use the Internet

-an area where at least every other business is a restaurant or cafe

2) Specific boundaries

-A location that is at least 3-blocks long, give me specific street names and the proposed boundaries
His criteria sort of illustrate my point, cause there are a large number of neighborhoods in SF that don't fit these criteria but would benefit hugely from wireless interenet. The problem that AnchorFree is trying to solve--making money in a socially responsible way--is not the problem that we are trying to solve: making sure everybody has access to the resources of the Internet.

That said, I think there is overlap, and we should encourage them to hook up the neighborhoods where we live, work and hang out. One suggestion I would make would be 24th Street between Valencia and Potrero. Plenty o' restaurants and cafes, and a pretty contained area.

What do you folks think? Go ahead and email Denis@anchorfree.com if you have suggestions, and feel free to let us know what you suggest in comments.

4 Comments:

Brew said...

San Francisco - via SFLan already has some braod free wireless coverage. Of course a lot of the nodes are down . . .

SFLan is a pretty cool community project though - as there's not really a central entity.

11:30 AM  
Michael said...

19th street to 17th street along The Castro would be a good one, it could also include 18th and 19th between collingwood st. and hartford st.

That's where i hang out a lot. It definitely has enough restaurants and cafes...not to mention great nightclubs :)

10:55 PM  
sasha said...

SFLan is an interesting idea, but it seems pretty moribund. It is arguable that a combination of the city with non-profits (like SFLan) and for-profits (AnchorFree) could do a pretty good job of covering San Francisco, but I think it's more likely that the city would have a) the staying power and b) the commitment to universal coverage that the other groups seem to lack.

It certainly makes a lot of sense to try to learn from both SFLan and AnchorFree, but if we want universal access, we need to force the people (nominally, at least) accountable to us to come through. And that is, in this case, the city.

11:40 AM  
Anonymous said...

HelloFor instance, Leff (1978:663) defines business group as a group of companies that does business in different markets under common administrative or financial control whose members are linked by relations of interpersonal trust on the bases of similar personal ethnic or commercial background a business group. Encarnation (1989:45) refers to Indian business houses, emphasizing multiple forms of ties among group members. Powell and Smith-Doerr (1994:388) state that a business group is a network of firms that regularly collaborate over a long time period. Granovetter (1994:454) argues that business groups refers to an intermediate level of binding, excluding on the one hand a set of firms bound merely by short-term alliances and on the other a set of firms legally consolidated into a single unit. Williamson (1975, 1985) claims that business groups lie between markets and hierarchies. Khanna and Rivkin (1999) suggest that business groups are typically not legal constructs thou
gh some regulatory bodies have attempted to codify a definition.

index.html

index1.html

trade show

mlb trade rumor

trade stock

special trade contractor

trade organization

trade schools

trade show display

allen iverson trade

federal trade commission

trade secret

edge hill mastering mcgraw trade trader

trade your way to financial freedom

international trade

forex trade

trade show booth

iverson trade

fair trade

nba trade rumor

auto trade

world trade center movie

trade show exhibit

trade a plane
Thanks for your attantion.

5:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home