 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to wifi4milez
Re: " Free Service" said by wifi4milez:Exactly. How much of the $5m did they spend to get this portion of the network up? How long until the remainder of that money is used up, 6 months a year at most? Q) What happens when the money is gone? A) The taxpayers foot the bill of course! Bottom line: If you live in Houston beware, since you will soon be bailing your city out of another bungled wifi deployment. Again, you're not even trying. Did you even read the whole article before spewing your Anti-WiFi-Anything nonsense?
This will be funded by the parking meter fees.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
2 edits | said by Matt: Again, you're not even trying. Did you even read the whole article before spewing your Anti-WiFi-Anything nonsense? This will be funded by the parking meter fees. Where did you read that? All the article says is that the system uses unused bandwidth from the parking meter system to allow people to surf. Unless that system is self-sustainable (what government program is, if any?), taxpayer money will be going into it for anything from regular maintenance to upgrades.
I don't think he's against "wifi anything", just pointing out that the "free service" is anything but free, unless you don't pay taxes. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by R4M0N:said by Matt: Again, you're not even trying. Did you even read the whole article before spewing your Anti-WiFi-Anything nonsense? This will be funded by the parking meter fees. Where did you read that? All the article says is that the system uses unused bandwidth from the parking meters to allow people to surf. Unless that system is self-sustainable, taxpayer money will be going into it for anything from regular maintenance to upgrades. I don't think he's against "wifi anything", just pointing out that the "free service" is anything but free, unless you don't pay taxes. The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters.
said by Article :
The network was implemented to provide electronic communication for City's new state-of-the-art wireless parking meter pay stations. The high bandwidth capacity of this network allows the City to securely segment excess network bandwidth for the Houston WiFi service.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
1 edit | said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by wifi4milez:Exactly. How much of the $5m did they spend to get this portion of the network up? How long until the remainder of that money is used up, 6 months a year at most? Q) What happens when the money is gone? A) The taxpayers foot the bill of course! Bottom line: If you live in Houston beware, since you will soon be bailing your city out of another bungled wifi deployment. Again, you're not even trying. Did you even read the whole article before spewing your Anti-WiFi-Anything nonsense? This will be funded by the parking meter fees. Ummm, did you even visit the Houston city website?? It's not being funded by parking meter fees, and in fact makes absolutely no mention of that. What is does say is that it was deployed to provide electronic communication to and from new parking stations around the city.
said by Houston City Website :
The network was implemented to provide electronic communication for City's new state-of-the-art wireless parking meter pay stations.
Furthermore (again, if you had bothered to visit the site) you can see that the city realizes that this might be a losing proposition, and so they have prepared a way to back out gracefully when the inevitable comes.
said by Houston City Website :
The City of Houston is providing free WiFi as a pilot. The City has no long-term service commitments beyond but a long term service commitment may be provided if the pilot is successful in terms of usage and operation.
Translation: "Once we realize what a stupid idea this was we are going to either charge people to use the network, or keep it "free" and raise taxes."
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N:said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. I'm sure the $5 million from Earthlink helped. And you're right, it's possible the revenue won't cover it, but that's extremely doubtful. If they determine the usage is too high, they can just close it to the public. At least they are willing to give free access to the public a shot.
Are City governments not allowed to spend their tax revenues? Would you and WiFi4Milez like them to just put it in the bank and never use it?
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:Ummm, did you even visit the Houston city website?? It's not being funded by parking meter fees, and in fact makes absolutely no mention of that. What is does say is that it was deployed to provide electronic communication to and from new parking stations around the city. You have absolutely no understanding of how a business, much less a government, is run do you?
They have X amount of dollars they allocate for a project and the project is funded from that. In this case, they allocated X amount of dollars to install a WiFi network for the parking meters. So it's being funded by fees for that project, ergo, the parking meters are funding the project.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by R4M0N:said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. I'm sure the $5 million from Earthlink helped. And you're right, it's possible the revenue won't cover it, but that's extremely doubtful. If they determine the usage is too high, they can just close it to the public. At least they are willing to give free access to the public a shot. Are City governments not allowed to spend their tax revenues? Would you and WiFi4Milez like them to just put it in the bank and never use it? You raise an interesting point. First, we dont know how much of that $5m the city had to spend just to get to this point. There might be nothing left already. More importantly, an application such as automated parking meter reading certainly doesnt require something as expensive and process intensive as wifi (with theoretical rates of 54Mbps). A cheaper solution would have been to pick up the remnants of the old Ricochet system for a few thousand dollars. Parking meters dont need more than 12k (if that!) of data, so even Ricochets 128k would have been overkill. That equipment is literally sitting unused in a few cities (unless it was sold for junk), and Houston might even have been paid to take it away! Dont get me wrong, I am not actually suggesting they do that but it is a much more cost effective alternative to this wifi mess they have created.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Matt
said by Matt:You have absolutely no understanding of how a business, much less a government, is run do you? Yes in fact I have many years of first hand knowledge running a business and working with the government. Thanks for asking though!
said by Matt:They have X amount of dollars they allocate for a project and the project is funded from that. In this case, they allocated X amount of dollars to install a WiFi network for the parking meters. So it's being funded by fees for that project, ergo, the parking meters are funding the project. You are confusing yourself. Setting aside funding for a project, and running said project on future produced revenue, are two totally different things. Your original statement was:
said by MattE :
This will be funded by the parking meter fees.
That is not correct. You are now trying to wiggle out of that and imply you meant something else, but thats not going to work. The city spent a given amount of money to deploy this network. Once that money is gone (if its not already) they will need to come up with additional money to continue offering this service. The options are:
1) Make people pay
2) Raise taxes
The reason for this is that the revenue earned by the original, non wireless parking meters is already accounted for. I can assure you the city uses that money in their budget for things such as road repair, maintenance, or any number of things. Adding an additional expense (the wireless equipment, techs, man hours, etc.) will require additional money be raised. As I just mentioned, there are two ways to get that money, take your pick!
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by R4M0N:said by Matt:The service was installed for the parking meters. So it was going to be installed no matter what. They realized they had a ton of unused capacity so they opened it up to the public to see how well it works. If it doesn't work well, they will close it to the public, but the service will remain in place for the parking meters. That doesn't mean the revenue for the parking meters is enough to pay for the whole system, its upkeep, upgrades and the implementations costs. Are City governments not allowed to spend their tax revenues? Would you and WiFi4Milez like them to just put it in the bank and never use it? Here's a wild idea, they could refund it to the people who paid it in the first place. You know, charge less taxes.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
Why deploy something obsolete and spend the money on deployment (where most of the costs are) and on hardware it may be impossible to service/maintain in the future, with no other upside.
This project has potential. First, how much savings will be realized from not having meter readers, and 2ndly, the network could be expanded to include other uses, so it has a future potential.
Most of the expenses are in the deployment and build out stage, which would of required similar effort and labor for deploying the obsolete system or this one.
Personally I don't see a huge downside to this. Also the city is taking the "Let's see how the free access works out" line of thinking. If it doesn't work out, it stops.
I don't see the huge potential for waste and loss here.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | reply to wifi4milez
Wow, that theory involves quite a few presumptions. You sipping a beer while preaching from your armchair over there in Tulsa? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to texans20
Thats unamerican. |
|
| reply to texans20
said by texans20:Here's a wild idea, they could refund it to the people who paid it in the first place. You know, charge less taxes. The only taxes Houston has is sales tax and property tax. Putting $5 million back into that will in no way reduce your sales tax and Houston has already been talking about lowering property tax before this came up. The money was already allocated to the project long before they decided to make a WAP out of it. If you think about about they are already giving back by opening up the network to the public. |
|
