Wi/WiNotFi

In the Regular Council Meeting (RCM), 7 Dec, 2015
Staff proposes to Council a
Request for Decision
Topic: Permit public WiFi at various public places

WhoFi
Staff is asking for approval after they conducted a simple informal - in a word: shallow - 2 question survey on the City's Facebook Page, with the majority of 168 respondents in favor of such service - any service that makes them feel countable.
While going this route may seem the logical - and simplest! - way to get a sampling of public opinion: this opinion may also be lopsided, what with many computer-users not automatically, rather deliberately not being Facebookers and an ever-growing number of such leaving the fold. Thus their opinion clearly of great and needed value in deliberations on how to possibly fashion-or-not a contract agreeable to all between the City and Shaw.

In the RCM Councillors are asked verbally only to approve a first-step contract between Shaw and the City. A copy of this contract is not provided. Which is regrettable, because ultimately Council approved what? Are they clear on that? As now we hear/read that Council approved installation of tower-to-tower zappers in our parks (my image - while to the point). Neither is true: seeing that this first-step contract - as told - is only an initial official response to Shaw's offer, no obligation in this - just one non-binding step towards possible negotiations aiming at later acceptance of Shaw service-installation.
The Nelson Star is a step ahead of this first-step contract with Nelson council backs Shaw's free Wi-Fi: it backs in principle but not in intent!


So the public must know - as Council must remember - that the City supposedly won't be obligated to open negotiations past this first-step door-opener. But what do we/they know: they only having voted based on verbals.

HowFi
In essence: free Shaw GoWiFi - in yet to be decided local locations - is to be available to those opening an account with Shaw - but also those having a contract with a different Internet Service Provider (ISP) already: as a sideline - literally.

What with Shaw seemingly totally prepared for whatever this may be(come for them) -we are not: possibly naively reaching for the apple, the golden egg - a free lunch. But as today there simply is no free corporate lunch: this service and process towards Nelson accepting it needs careful step-by-step scrutiny and deliberation. 
Not just giving predictably boring fine-print a quick going-over - but taking enough time to understand it - in detail/total - to avoid unpleasant surprises later.

With Council in charge of contract-terms!

 

   


IfFi
When asked for more detailed info, Frances Long, Director of Corporate Services, says: that will not be provided by Shaw until the first-step contract has been signed. Even though she every so often drops factoids coming from being informed. If she is - why isn't Council?

Councillor Purcell raises 2 points - paraphrased here - crucial among many. 

Q: Will Council get to participate in further steps of this process, following that of signing-off on opening negotiations?
A: That would usually not be the case but could be.

With bells going off in a big way - Purcell does not pursue, Long does not volunteer: while Council's presence in determining the content of an ultimate agreement is crucial. This is happening on their watch, is their responsibility to the electorate - with Staff's general position in relation to Council supposedly largely to implement their decisions.
This particularly in view of Staff's 3 recent disturbing decisions without Council's knowledge or consideration or consultation or approval:
Cottonwood Market; the Panhandling Bylaw; the 300 Block Hall.

Q: Will those signing-up for the service be able to cancel it when they wish to?
A: This will be looked at later. But cancellation clauses will be favorable.

Meaning what? On whose terms? This is a key-point: what with - for example - the difficulty of cancelling Facebook subscriptions, after those blatantly shopped around to anyone from commercial to political interests.
A double-whammy with this Shaw subscription: not only does it enable Shaw to mine info from parttime subscribers - but also from their fulltime ISPs. What with everybody's IP Address (IP) forever branded on their forehead.

RealityFi
According to Long: Shaw's intent with this freebie is getting users to switch to Shaw permanently. But why would they, how could they even: if locked into a contract with another ISP? Even those not bound to a contract - while with a free account! - would find moving their entire history from one ISP to another expensively daunting and most likely not do it. With a signing-their-life-away contract: just to have WiFi access on the occasional bench. Nattering away in the park. Irritating the crows.
Sooo ... the harvest of switchers would surely be minimal - particularly in contrast to the effort Shaw seems to be willing to make at great cost. Are they just stupid?

Or what's really going on here, planned for later!

       
JustiFi
Such as - alarming in the Request should be: Maintenance of the service will include the need to upgrade equipment as technology continues to advance. This sounds like a statement-of-fact - not just a possibility down the line. Rhetorical question: Upgrade for what purpose? What could/would that mean to an uninformed hapless subscriber and the City?

Leading to: what exactly are potential parttime subscribers to sign? What rights do they have exactly, and what exactly is their recourse if? We know that new fulltimers will look at a lengthy contract: their problem if that obtuse.
The parttimer-situation in turn leading to the City - approving signatory with Shaw - probably liable for unexpected weirdness arising later.
Ultimately the City must make the contract-to-install available in total to potential subscribers - before signing it. As - conversely - the City must be comprehensively aware of agreements to be signed between Shaw and subscribers to GoWiFi.

 
WhereFi
It's doubtful that tourists will be enticed with WiFi-in-the-park to come to Nelson, or if they happen to come to feel an itch to use their devices in the park: they will probably go to the park to park their brains a bit. Just as it's doubtful that locals must go there to diddle with their electronics. 

On one hand we profess deep involvement with/in our natural environment and having to protect it at all costs - on the other Council has no qualms over giving that shop away to emotional plug-ins, encouraging them: they absolutely must transmit the most do-or-die info ever to someone/anyone right now! From a park!
Lakeside Park is a declared tobacco-free zone; much of it is declared dog-free - both for good reason: so why not have a zone for once! unpolluted by electronic addictions?
Councillors Warmington and Cherbo are to be commended on wanting to keep stuff human!

Having WiFi downtown is a different matter, may be useful to some. Although the Nelson Library, Touchstones, Capitol Theatre and Youth Centre becoming reliant-then-dependent on a corporate freebie is inviting trouble down the road. 
How about Shaw Street, Shaw Arena, Shawtown?

  

WhyFi
It is for their constituency that Councillors - as people, individually - need to look at variables - coming from being electronics-users themselves - to be thoroughly familiar with and decisively prepared for Staff's next presentation of the topic: ostensibly and finally! the first-step hard-copy contract. Probably unfortunately after the fact by then. To possibly follow that independent-minded step after step. The more-often-than-not at-arms-length paper-push won't do!

This is not about opposition to Shaw GoWiFi per se: but being respectfully selective about locations for it and contract-provisions bullet-proof for the City in general and users in particular.
The willingness to look a gift-horse in the mouth.

Let's not have to figure all these things out in the field again.
Ever!




glitch.news.com
it.intel.com
techtimes.com
pcworld.com