
Google will pay for free wireless in S.F. parks - petergreen
http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Google-to-pay-for-free-Wi-Fi-in-city-parks-4682622.php
======
ryanobjc
I know there is a lot of negativity around big companies like Google doing
"free" things like this. There is even mis-trust over a sense of unease at the
notion of "there is no such thing as a free lunch."

These feelings are totally valid, and they unfortunately can prevent the rest
of the community from acquiring a valuable resource. Free wifi in San
Francisco (One of the techiest cities in the world) feels like a "no-brainer."
Free wifi represents the values I would like to see more of in the world,
namely cooperation, altruism and generally an increase in non-monetary
exchanges.

As for the rest of the negatives, the kind of data Google might collect is
statistically useless - the sample bias is just too strong. And since I have
worked at Google, I know that many many Googlers feel VERY STRONGLY about not
doing creepy/immoral things like that. You may feel differently, and that's
ok, and I suggest attempting to meet and talk to more Googlers.

Finally, there has been much criticism about Google "not giving back" to the
community. First, as an employer, Google pays their employees well, and all
the taxes associated with that (see articles about SF's budget to a record
high due to tech employment, and the boost of social services as a result).
Secondly, Google buses, while derided, create a calmer, more peaceful city
population, and massively reduce the # of cars on the road. And lastly by
pushing forward projects like this (and I'm sure that SF city is preventing
things like capture portal ads or whatever) I feel this improves the city.

~~~
sbashyal
_many many Googlers feel VERY STRONGLY about not doing creepy /immoral things
like that_

Many Googlers != All Googlers != Google

How would you explain this? [http://mashable.com/2012/02/17/google-caught-
tracking-safari...](http://mashable.com/2012/02/17/google-caught-tracking-
safari-users/)

~~~
justinpombrio
Reading that article and the follow up[1], it looks like Google made use of a
quirk in Safari to give third-party cookies that would otherwise be blocked.
No other major browser blocked third party cookies in this way, so the
workaround just made Safari act like, e.g., Firefox. The quirk was relatively
well-known, used by other advertisers and "like" buttons and such, and the
article says that "Facebook even encourages developers to exploit the same
Safari quirk Google targeted here.".

Google then: * Acknowledged the problem and apologized * Stated that the
workaround was meant to be used for their "+1" buttons and such, but not for
advertisements * Stopped giving out these cookies for advertisements on Safari
* Was sued by the FCC for $22 million * Is now being sued by consumers on
nebulous grounds

If you accept the claim that it was an accident to begin with, I don't see
that Google did anything wrong.

[1] [http://mashable.com/2013/01/25/google-safari-tracking-
lawsui...](http://mashable.com/2013/01/25/google-safari-tracking-lawsuit/)

~~~
yapcguy
Google is a serial offender when it comes to privacy violations. Not really
different from big banks who are caught committing fraud but always manage to
settle with a big wad of cash, without having to admit any guilt whatsoever.

~~~
gbin
Comparing Google ethics to banks ethics. sorry you said wat?!

I worked for at a credit bank and I am still shocked at how immoral my
coworkers were... I mean there was no limit : racist discrimination with the
first name to calculate a risk on a consumer credit ? checked. Intentionally
put people under with credit, anticipating the fact and be first to recollect
? checked.

At Google, from day one if you remember one thing they tell you : You never
mess with private data ever.

------
tylerlh
I'm disappointed to see they're already on to offering free wifi elsewhere
when the network they installed in Mountain View still suffers terribly. I've
never seen it operate better than barely usable/non-existent. Hopefully this
ends up better.

------
yapcguy
No such thing as a free lunch/wifi. I suspect Google want to capture data
which they are currently missing out on due to people using 3G/4G networks.
Also it doesn't hurt to improve their image in San Francisco.

Non-paywall article: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/24/free-wifi-san-
francisco-goo...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/24/free-wifi-san-francisco-
google/)

~~~
cromwellian
For Google, $600k is a rounding error. It's the cost of one engineer. Even if
somehow spending $600k could net a 10x return, it would still be relatively
pointless. Remember, Google routinely kills off working products that bring in
far more revenue and collect far more data. Google would have collected far
more data from Reader alone.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a charitable act is a charitable act. If
you want to invent a hidden agenda for this, then the most reasonable one
would be Good PR.

~~~
yapcguy
Have you forgotten Google's history? i.e. StreetView cars guzzling down Wifi
access point data.

~~~
calcitriol
Is that wrong? It allows them to offer location based services without making
people use GPS. This is a service that you can disable, by the way.

I don't see anything wrong with collecting SSIDs that are being broadcasted
onto public roads.

But to get back on topic- Google is doing a good thing here and should be
commended for it.

------
mwsherman
When is the last time anyone here has connected successfully to outdoor wifi?
Here in NY, I try it all the time in the parks that offer it, without success.

(I haven’t tried Google’s wifi near their office in Chelsea, maybe it’s
better.)

Wifi seems consistently to be a poor choice for large, uncontrolled spaces. If
anyone can make it work through sheer engineering will, it’s Google, but the
evidence thus far is that it is a misapplication of technology.

LTE et al do a much better job of it, because they are engineered for such
environments. Why do we keep pinning our hopes on wifi?

~~~
naner
_Why do we keep pinning our hopes on wifi?_

It is the only wireless technology that is standard on every device.

------
ripter
This is awesome. I'm glad to see Google doing things like this.

------
jlgaddis
Link to similar article that isn't behind a paywall?

~~~
Shank
[http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Google-will-pay-for-
free-...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Google-will-pay-for-free-
wireless-in-S-F-parks-4682622.php)

(Picked because it was also a SF area newspaper/news website, similar to
Chronicle).

~~~
dragonwriter
sfgate isn't just "a SF area newspaper/news website, similar to Chronicle", it
is the same entity as the Chronicle. You'll notice that the page lined at
sfchronicle.com has the sfgate logo in the upper left corner and the page
linked at sfgate.come article has the Chronicle logo.

(You'll also notice that, URL differences and some presentation issues like
font choice aside, the photo, caption, and the line of the article above the
paywall fold on the Chronicle site are identical to the photo, caption, and
first line of the article on the sfgate site.)

------
jes5199
I sort of wish that google wasn't a private company anymore. Their service is
so pervasive and so fundamental to society that I think it should really be
nationalized. Or, since it's international, taken over by the U.N.

Or: to attack the same problem from another angle: I'd be happier if we had
either decentralized replacements for Google and Amazon and Ebay.

I'd prefer these platforms - and the vast wealth and power they create - to be
either in the hands of the general public, or in the hands of democracy, than
to be controlled by the whims of the nouveau riche.

~~~
peferron
The NSA would love it too.

------
IvyMike
Yet another SF space to be crowded with laptop-wielding techies? I welcome
this news with the same gusto I'd welcome it if Exxon paid for free
interstates in Yosemite.

------
zurn
Hopefully they're preparing to produce a device that works in a park. Still
waiting for the 21st century to catch up with the Psion 5 MX and PalmPilot...

------
pinaceae
but then they will quickly pull the plug on it once someone actually starts
using it.

they have just done that with the Netflix deal and Chromecast - already
cancelled, barely 24h after it was made available.

it's bad enough to be dependent on gsearch and gmail, no need to also get
dependent on wifi access, etc. for "free", with no guarantee it will work
tomorrow.

------
liveinoakland
will it work as well as the free google wifi in mountain view?

------
nsns
Until they won't.

------
freeasinfree
Google Wifi in Mountain View is horrible, I can't imagine this will be much
better. 2.4GHz is always a shit-show in any major city. 5GHz is an option, but
not nearly as many mobiles have it, and the available channels on each device
vary wildly. Plus that would start creating noise for a certain WISP I have a
fondness for and don't want to see them affected.

~~~
rdl
I've never actually successfully connected to it on Castro Street, although I
only ever tried inside buildings. I thought it had been disabled or something,
I didn't realize it was just like that normally. :(

~~~
rhubarbquid
You need a "WiFi modem" to use it effectively inside a building.

~~~
rdl
Do you mean an external antenna with higher gain, and/or an outdoor antenna
and internal repeater?

