The Cost of Free Wi-Fi

Comment

Mar 1, 2007, By Shane Peterson

In August 2006, Culver City, Calif., officials decided the city ought to get into the censorship business.

It all started when Culver City, like so many others, joined the Wi-Fi craze by creating a network covering 10 square blocks of its downtown to provide free Internet access. People being people, some ne'er do wells evidently used the network to illegally trade copyrighted material, such as music and movies, and to download pornography.

This quote -- attributed to John Richo, Culver City's director of information technology -- appeared in a press release issued by the company that sold filtering software now used by the city: "Our hotspot was facilitating trading of illegal content. We don't condone copyright infringement, and we saw that we were at risk. Public agencies can be viewed as having deep pockets, and we are very sensitive to liability issues. Besides, P2P [peer-to-peer] file trading and pornographic Web sites are bandwidth hogs, and taxpayers don't want municipal funds used to enable illegal activity or minors' access to porn."

I pay taxes, and I don't care about who does what on a Wi-Fi network supported by my tax dollars. I don't think I'm alone. It's like being offended that some people use taxpayer-funded interstate highways to drive to Nevada to gamble or engage in other, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" activities.

That said, the question of risk can't be ignored. Just what would a local government's risk be of enabling copyright infringement or allowing minors the access to porn sites? I'm no lawyer, though I've read plenty of media coverage of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) suing people to throttle the practice of sharing digital media in violation of copyright protections.

I don't recall the RIAA trying to sue big Internet service providers like Comcast, Time Warner or AT&T. Courts have been reluctant to hold ISPs liable for the actions of their users, and it seems doubtful a local government that provided a Wi-Fi network would be hauled into court.

The argument that peer-to-peer/porn sites are bandwidth hogs is questionable, as well. I'm no network administrator, but a packet is a packet is a packet, isn't it? What does it matter what Web site it comes from? Isn't a video from PBS's Web site just as much of a bandwidth hog as a video from a porn site?

If a local government wants to create free Internet access via a Wi-Fi network, then that government should be prepared for people to use the network in all sorts of ways -- be it naughty or nice.

It's not for government to say what Web sites a person visits. Unless, of course, that government's headquartered in Beijing.

Comments

By Anonymous on Mar 23, 2007

The argument you seem to make is that government should not place any limits or restrictions on Wi-Fi hotspots and you use the example of our public transportation system. To make our public roads safe and to prevent chaos on our roads, the government does have "rules" and laws that govern how our highways are to be used. There are speed limits as well as many other sensible rules that are intended for the public good. If the public funded Wi-Fi allows people to set up P2P sites this will have an adverse effect on how others are able to use the network. While a packet is a packet -- P2P has the potential of using up large amounts of the bandwidth which will have an adverse effect on other users. Tom Gray, SUN Area Career & Technology Center

By Anonymous on Mar 22, 2007

Culver City is under no obligation to provide "free" Internet service, but if it chooses to pay for such a service, why shouldn't it be able to place limits on the use of the service, subject to the wishes of the majority of taxpayers whose taxes ultimately pay for such service? If the service is too limited, lame, buggy, etc., users can always choose to access the Internet another way. If unencumbered Internet access led to illegal activity, such as access or transmission of certain types of illegal images, city leaders would be roundly criticized, to say the least, for not attempting to do something about that. At a less extreme level, the city might have to waste lots of tax dollars responding to pressure from copyright holders if its network were found to be a major transmission point for pirated content. Put another way, it's not that the city is attempting to limit users' access in its capacity as a government, but rather that it is exerting its rights as the one paying for the system. Of course, it's paying for it out of public funds, but the city is the steward of the funds and is accountable for responsible use thereof. If the majority of voters want less interference with city-provided Internet access, they can use the power of the ballot box to influence that kind of thing.

By Anonymous on Mar 22, 2007

As Culver City is a municipality of a country, whose limits on control of citizens' free speech is stated, it must still obey those limits regardless of offending a narrow, intolerant set of values. At least, that's one of the rights being fought for in the Middle East. Or is it?

By Anonymous on Mar 19, 2007

In Point of View "The cost of free Wi-Fi" (March 2007), Mr. Peterson makes a valid point regarding the use of a "free" government sponsored wi-fi network. Using the metaphor of the government funded interstate highway system, he notes that we (the general public) don't really care where our fellow travelers are going and again don't care about what they do when they get there. Using this metaphor, there is a corollary however. The general public not only cares, but demands that government regulates the use of the highway system for the general welfare. Even though the "public facility" is there for all of the public to use, government is mandated to enforce its laws, especially within the public ways. One is no "free" to solicit illicit goods or transport illicit goods on the public highways. One cannot set up shop within the public way for even a licit business without restrictions that are not required for that same business on private properties, etc. etc. The point is, government does have a mandate and a strict obligation to enforce its laws, especially when any illicit use of its public properties is being made. Joe Garlitz, Administrator City of Elgin P.O. Box 128 Elgin, OR 97827

Respond to a comment.