I say maybe

I agree with position of Vivek Hutheesing

I say maybe

in areas where there is parking and access.
school has access and upper income have it at home inthe hills.
low incoem areas hooked up first..
might be noice to set up wifi in marina and south and west berkely community centers making it people who mostly cant afford it on thier own

I say maybe

If the city can in some way support the local ISP private sector to provide the service, then I think its a good idea. If this would in fact force some local businesses out of business, then I would not be in support of this measure. I am also unclear, in the grand scheme of things that scarce resources, including Berkeley officials time, is best spent on this issue. Bottom line, if its budget neutral, can be done in a way that involves local ISPs, then great. If not, I would vote no.

I say maybe

If it is of no cost to the City.

I say maybe

It's important to recognize there is no such thing as "free Wi-Fi" - the question is who will pay for it. If the City is going to pay for it, can it contract with several providers to avoid a monopoly? Also on the economic front, it's important to take a 5- to 10-year view. What kind of hardware, software, maintenance, and tech support will be needed as broadband capacity/demand continues to explode? What might the costs be to support that? I don't like the idea of an open-ended budget impact that spirals up and up with no cap, until the city budget can't afford it one day and it's yanked away from people causing disruptions. On the other hand, wi-fi is the way we're going it's just a fact we'll stay more and more "connected". wondering if a more regional solution with neighboring cities might make sense - economies of scale (and political wrangling!) etc.

I say maybe

I think that municipal WiFi is a decent idea in theory, but in practice I am not certain it is worth the effort and cost it would take at the present time. I agree that internet access and the so-called digital divide are important issues. We should strive to ensure that all citizens have access to the information techonologies that define our age. That said, I think there are better ways to go about it for the time being. Why not somehow ensure lower service costs for the economically disadvantaged?

As a UC student, I appreciate the convenience of the WiFi on campus; but I will be the first to admit that the majority of the activities I undertake on it are far from essential. Also, what are the implications of WiFi for our public places? Are people going to go sit in parks with their laptops playing World of Warcraft or trading stocks?

Alternatively, perhaps we could focus on creating hot spots in the city, rather than trying to cover the city entirely. This could be done at a much lower cost and would still provide the convenience of internet access while out and about at crucial locations.

I tentatively support universal free WiFi access, but I think there are issues that should be explored further and that we must consider our other priorities at the present time.

(Note: I do not oppose WiFi for any perceived radiation/health reasons. I believe these to be complete nonsense.)

I say maybe

I think this would be great, however...there are many who do not even own a computer and therefore must still have access to information that what would be appearing on a Wi-Fi system.
Berkeley has had a long term problem of even being able to balance any budget for any fiscal year without constant cuts and where cuts can not be made/modified, it resorts to higher taxes or fees levied to the homeowners. We have a constant fear of those of us who rent property within Berkeley City Limits that as owners, will not be able to pass along these increases to tenants due to format within guidelines of what constitutes increases and just how much profits we can make from rentals. Renters don't want to see higher rents, homeowners certainly do not and can not continue to bear the brunt of all the whims of many who oppose most of anything that will help the growth of business in Berkeley, thus helping to elivate higher taxes et al. Where will the City Council with City Managers imput find these funds to warrant free to all residents? Perhaps a minor subscription fee should be considered an alternative to those wishing to have this access within Berkeley?? Like in any community, progress is necessary, but we must remember, it must fall into the annual budget and where better to achieve than through new business growth, perhaps City Council Members should devote more time and resources in setting this as a major goal and then perhaps more free services can be offered.

I say maybe

If it can be done for free or ridiculously cheap, sure. If it's going to cost anything, there are more important priorities.

I say maybe

Yes, but only if there is no cost to the taxpayers.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
I need to know what it will cost the city before I can make an informed decision.
-----------------------
Yes, free WIFI for all would be great, but that's only half the equation. The other half is the cost. Maybe it's worth the cost, maybe it isn't.

Do all the people who have voted "yes" know what this will cost? I haven't found any argument or "expert" testimony that conveys this information. One would think that reasonable people would need to know the price of something before deciding to purchase it.

Because that's what we're talking about, a purchase. Nobody is offering to wave a magic wand and have WIFI magically appear. If I'm wrong, and that's the case, I'll change my vote to "yes".

In my opinion, we make too many purchase decisions based upon the "magic wand" method of cost analysis. It is not enough that something would be good to have, we have to be able to afford it.

Without knowing the cost, neither I nor anyone else, can reasonably say we can afford it.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
I have two primary concerns: (1) Security--to
what extent will city-wide WiFi increase the
danger of identity theft or theft of personal information? (2) Cost: My impression is that
many cities are negotiating WiFi agreements
at little or no cost to the city, and Berkeley
should be able to do the same. Provided these concerns are addressed, I favor the proposal.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
There's no magic to this. You just have to avoid being the idiot straw-man that the telcos posit every time they try to keep municipalities from breaking their monopolies. To wit:

1) "Wi-fi" is not the issue. Open access to the rights-of-way is the issue.

2) If you break the telco monopoly on the right-of-way, it's trivially easy and inexpensive to put up open 802.11 access points.

3) It being trivially easy, there's no need for the city to do it. Anybody can do it, and will, as evidenced in all the places where people aren't quite so successfully cowed by telcos.

4) So, again, the issue is open access to the PROW. This is a relatively simple regulatory issue. You wouldn't consider letting your municipality sell monopoly rights to the streets to a Texas company, would you? And get charged a toll any time you wanted to pull your car out of your driveway? Of course not. That would be idiocy. Just as allowing some arbitrary Texas company to have monopoly control over Berkeley's communications rights-of-way is.

So let's fix this, and stop letting people drag out the "Wi-Fi" straw-man.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
Should not require lots of staff time to set up & administer and should learn from the experience of other cities. Should determine who would use the service who is not currently being served -- perhaps a UC student might be interested in this question.
-----------------------
Too many unanswered issues

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
I think that if this is to be implemented and paid for by all taxpayers then ALL areas of the City must be treated equally. I also note that the service will be limited to "residents" of Berkeley.
-----------------------
I am very concerned that some areas, notably the hills, will receive inferior service because (a) it will be more expensive to give good wireless service to these locations, and (b) the easy political rhetoric will be that the rich folks in the hills don't really need this anyway.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
I like the idea of free wireless Internet access, but, in order to support efforts to implement this, I would have to be persuaded that (1) lack of Internet access in Berkeley is a serious problem that could be solved by providing free Wi-Fi, (2) we already have adequate funding allocated to address all of the problems which I consider more serious than lack of Internet access, and (3) the City can really afford it. I would not support a tax increase or a bond measure to fund this effort. I think fiber optic cables sound like a bad idea, due to the investment of time, money, and materials required and due to concerns that the technology will become outdated after such an investment.
-----------------------
I think we need a lot more information about this proposal. Aside from concerns about the costs and whether it should be a budget priority, I would like to be convinced that it addresses a real problem. On the other hand, I think free Internet access at public libraries is an important service, and improvements to this system, if desired by library patrons, would be a worthwhile way to spend City money.

I say maybe

It is a great idea in theory, and likely in practice. But i see no information that suggests whether or not the City has the $2-5 million to spend on this over other projects. KD is doing a great job, but the issues are starting to strike me as do many initiatives/referenda -- how do I really know? What's our budget? What other concerns are being funded, or are competing for these funds? The Lo-Jack project? Others? Isn't this why we have City management? If the City just wants to know whether, pie-in-the-sky, I'd like the infrastructure built, the answer is yes. If it's looking for my vote on this project, I need more information!

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
As long as the funds are not pulled from vital city services to the residents. Health services, childcare, homeless shelters, public safety, and environmental projects are still of more concern to me than wireless. Wi-Fi should not steal from those who have less resources to benefit those that do.
-----------------------
As a nurse practitioner who takes public transportation, I often have to make use of the longer commute by working on the road. Having access to wireless throughout the city would make it easier to check online resources that could assist my patients. My main concern is where the funds come from, now and in the future, and whether the safety has been evaluated.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
If all or most citizens of the city of Berkeley (not of the US necessarily, but the city) are given a way to access the internet along with free wireless then by all means go for it. I propose that along with free wireless we loan every high school student a wireless enabled laptop that they can take home. Gunther High School in San Jose has done this and I know of at least one student who brought internet access home to his family - who struggles financially. The technical support is done via the school and educating the students. This won't cover everyone, but it is a start.

-----------------------
While free access to the internet is seen as a way for everybody to be informed, the truth is that unless it is enhanced this plan will only serve those people who have the means to have the equipment in the first place. If you want to be truly democratic then everyone needs to have access regardless of their socio-economic standing or technical knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to take my laptop anywhere and have access to the internet. I'd love to not pay the 24.99 a month I pay now for access. My kids would be thrilled to get wireless internet access as well. But unless my neighbors can have it too, I'd rather we gave everyone free public transportation and reduced the nasty air we have to breathe.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
It is a great idea, but like in San Francisco, it should not cost the City a dime. Spend no public money on this.
-----------------------
The track record in other Cities tells us there is no need to pay. Access to the citizens of Berkeley is enough.

I say maybe

If the following conditions are met:
The information 'floating' around Berkeley regarding "Wi-Fi" and FTR (fiber to the residence) is fragmentary. It is insufficient for the residents of the COB to make considered judgements.

A well researched description of two very different modes of broadband Internet connectivity is needed.

Who will supply that?
-----------------------
The information 'floating' around Berkeley regarding "Wi-Fi" and FTR (fiber to the residence) is fragmentary. It is insufficient for the residents of the COB to make considered judgements.

A well researched description of two very different modes of broadband Internet connectivity is needed.

Who will supply that?