SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo

ETEREA

•
•
Yulia Besplemennova
Yulia Besplemennova
1 de 126
Baixar para ler offline
New Urban Wi-Fi Landscape ETEREA
ETEREA New Urban Wi-Fi Landscape A thesis project by Yulia Besplemennova 764434 Academic Tutor Fabio Di Liberto Assistant Marco Lampugnani POLITECNICO DI MILANO FACOLTÁ DEL DESIGN Product Service System Design Master Degree A.Y. 2012/2013
Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................6 Intro .........................................................................................................................................................................................9 THEORETICAL RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................... 10 Why Internet..........................................................................................................................................12 Cyberspace ......................................................................................................................................................................14 Social Effects of the Internet ...............................................................................................................................16 Cyberspace vs. Public Space ...............................................................................................................................20 ICT and Cyberspace vs. Spatial Organisation of Cities .....................................................................26 The Internet and Public Realm ......................................................................................................................... 30 Why Wi-Fi? .........................................................................................................................................34 Why Not 3G? .................................................................................................................................................................36 Trends in 3G ....................................................................................................................................................................40 O2 Case ............................................................................................................................................................................42 AT&T Case ......................................................................................................................................................................44 What is Wi-Fi?....................................................................................................................................46 Wi-Fi as Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................................48 Hertzian Space...............................................................................................................................................................52 Hertzian Space and Affordances........................................................................................................................56 Visualizing Wi-Fi..........................................................................................................................................................60 Daily Life Artifacts.......................................................................................................................................................62 How do cities do it?.........................................................................................................................64 Values of City Wi-Fi...................................................................................................................................................66 Why and How Cities Do Wi-Fi.................................................................................. 68 The Philadelphia Story..............................................................................................................................................70 New York City Case....................................................................................................................................................72 Bottom-Up in Bryant Park..................................................................................................................................... 74 Estonia..................................................................................................................................................................................76 Wi-Fi & Internet in Italy.................................................................................................................78 Italian Internet Usage Statistics.........................................................................................................................80 Legal Regulations and Public Initiatives.......................................................................................................84 Wi-Fi Offers.....................................................................................................................................................................86 FIELD RESEARCH .......................................................................................................................................................92 Field Observations Preparation and Examples ....................................................................................................................................94 Tools.......................................................................................................................................................................................96 Research Questions.....................................................................................................................................................98 Choosing Spaces.........................................................................................................................................................100 Piazza Argentina ..........................................................................................................................................102 Via Morgagni ....................................................................................................................................................124 Upcycle.................................................................................................................................................................136 Research Synthesis Understanding Users........................................................................................................................142 Clustering Users .....................................................................................................................148 User Archetypes Description..........................................................................................152 Understanding Offer Focusing on Open Wifi Milano..................................................................................... 158 Digital Islands...........................................................................................................................164 Mapping Global Context...................................................................................................168 User Journey and Breakdown Moments.................................................................170 Openwifi Conclusion.............................................................................................................176 Design Principles.....................................................................................................................178 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Concept Service Approach to Infrastructure.........................................................................................182 Focusing on the Offer ......................................................................................................................184 Offer = traffic rules + bandwidth.............................................................................................186 Understanding demand through user needs.....................................................................190 Platform for Urban Engagement..............................................................................................194 Service Description.......................................................................................................196 For the Users.........................................................................................................................................198 For Partners...........................................................................................................................................200 For Urban Planning............................................................................................................................201 Options......................................................................................................................................................202 Offers and Credits.............................................................................................................................204 Graphic Concept Elements..........................................................................................................206 App/Website..........................................................................................................................................212 Other Touchpoints.............................................................................................................................226 New User Journey.............................................................................................................................228 Returning User Journey.................................................................................................................230 User Experience..................................................................................................................................232 System Map..........................................................................................................................................240 Future Development ...................................................................................................242 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................244 Appendix References.........................................................................................................................246 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................248 List of images..................................................................................................................250 Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................252 THEORETICAL RESEARCH FIELD RESEARCH ................. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
6 7 Eterea – Nuovi paesaggi Wi-Fi urbani Eterea è un nuovo modo di pensare l’offerta di accessi Wi-Fi nella città. Il suo obiettivo è quello di combinare virtualità a fisicità degli spazi in modo da garantire la migliore esperienza possibile all’utente. Poichè Internet sta modificando le nostre vite e i modi in cui facciamo esperienza di ciò che ci circonda, abbiamo un bisogno costante di con- netterci, ovunque ci troviamo. C’è chi dice, addirittura, che essere citta- dini significhi essere online. L’infrastruttura Wi-Fi urbana sta conoscendo una rinnovata crescita grazie alla diffusione dei dispositivi mobili e delle promesse legata alle smart cities. in Italia questa crescita è accompag- nata da innovazioni legislative e, a Milano in particolare, dai preparativi per la futura EXPO-2015. La complessità di questa nuova infrastruttura non va sottostimata. Se nel design si lavora normalmente con le possibilità/capacità (affordances) degli oggetti tangibili, con il Wi-Fi si hanno tre diversi livelli rispetto ai quali queste capacità sono manifeste: quello consueto dello spazio fisico, quello dello spazio elettromagnetico e quello dello spazio virtuale che definisce i nostri comportamenti in esso. Tutte queste dimensioni vanno prese in considerazione se si vuole soddisfare l’utente. Un ulteriore punto di interesse è l’equilibrio tra l’utilità del servizio offerto e la difficoltà nell’utilizzo dello stesso. La soluzione proposta si concen- tra sul lato dell’offerta, ridefinendola per i diversi gruppi di utenti. Con Eterea, i suoi utilizzatori potranno scegliere la corretta connessione, al momento giusto e nel luogo giusto, per poter soddisfare i loro bisogni. La concezione del servizio nasce da molteplici osservazioni sul campo, seguite da attente analisi dell’offerta esistente in città, utili a identificare le reali esigenze degli utenti e le lacune dei servizi già disponibili. I gruppi di utilizzatori principali sono stati circoscritti in relazione alla necessità di costruire un’offerta che incontri le esigenze di chi ne fa maggiore uso. Eterea fa leva anche sulla centralità di Internet come strumento di comu- nicazione contemporanea, e costruisce una piattaforma sulla quale altri partner possono avere accesso e integrare i loro servizi. É in questo modo che Eterea coinvolge molteplici attori, in modo da migliorare l’esperienza della connessione urbana nel suo insieme Eterea – New Urban Wi-Fi Landscape Eterea is a new way of thinking of Wi-Fi offer in the city. It aims at bringing together physical and virtual aspects of spaces for the best user experience. As Internet is changing our lives and the ways we relate to the world we constantly need to connect wherever we are. It is even said now that being urban is being online. City Wi-Fi infrastructures are experiencing new growth with spread of mobile devices and smart cities promise. In Italy it is rising with legal changes and in Milan especially with future EXPO-2015 preparations. Complexity of this new infrastructure should not be underestimated. Normally in design we work with affordances of tangible objects, but with Wi-Fi service there are three levels of affordances: the one of usual physical space, another of electromagnetic field and the affordance of the virtual space affecting our behavior in it. They all should be taken in account to satisfy users. Another important point is the balance between usefulness of service offer and difficulty of access to it. Proposed solution especially focuses on the offer component redefining it for multiple user groups. With Eterea they will be able to choose the right connection at right time and right place to satisfy their specific needs. This concept was developed after many field observations followed by deep research of existing offer in the city which helped to identify real user demands and gaps in exist- ing services. The crucial user groups were defined to focus on delivering proper solution to those who need it the most. Eterea is also emphasizing the central role of Internet as contemporary communication tool and builds a platform for other partners to enter and integrate their services. In this way it is engaging multiple actors to improve the overall connected urban experience. Abstract
8 9 Since the very first moment that I arrived to Italy I was struggling with different problems related to Internet access. First it was the absence of Wi-Fi connection in the hotels and places in the city and after — even at the place I rented. It was so frustrating that at one moment I was almost crying because of not being able to connect to meaningful people. However I was seeing it as a personal issue till my friends coming to Milan haven’t opened my eyes on how many people are really experiencing the same frustration in differ- ent situations. As I was looking for the topic of my thesis dealing with technology and the city I finally accepted the point that basic infrastructure level is unfairly missed by designers and deserves more atten- tion. Theoretical research and field observation proved this idea and the resulting project shows how human- centered approach can contribute to development of seemingly pure technological matter of infrastructure.
THEORETICAL RESEARCH Why Internet? Why Wi-FI? What is Wi-FI? How do cities do it? Wi-Fi & Internet in Italy
13 No need to say that the Internet became essential part of our life and it’s importance and penetration is growing faster than of any other communication medium in the human kind history. UN has even declared the inter- net access to be one of the basic human rights. “We all shape and are shaped by what happens there” [1] Of course with such rapid growth besides all other aspects of life it is affecting the life of cities and our behaviour: “Being urban is being online” [2] There was a moment when we could com- plain about people preferring to stay online at home resulting in less life out, but now with global spread of handheld devices situa- tion changes and we bring the Internet to the streets changing our relations to surrounding citizens and environment. Why the Internet?
14 15 Why the Internet? The Internet is a global network of computers linked by ‘wires’ – telecom- munications technologies (cables of copper, coaxial, glass, as well as radio and microwaves). The World Wide Web (WWW - it exists within the Internet) consists of mul- timedia data which are stored as hypermedia documents containing links to other pages of information. Intranets have the same functions as the Internet, but are private, corporate networks linking the offices, production and distribution sites of a company around the world. Other services existing within the Internet include email infrastructure, nu- merous messaging clients and peer-to-peer networks. Perhaps what distinguishes cyberspace, and in particular the Internet, has been the speed of diffusion and growth. However the unveiling of the Web in 1992 was the outcome of nearly thirty years’ of research in digital comput- ing and networking. Moreover, despite its impressive growth statistics, most of the world have yet to experience the Web and many may never gain access, particularly those in the developing world. “The rapid expansion in investment in Information and Communications Technologies and the exponen- tial growth of users of cyberspace is impressive, but their real importance – why they matter – centres on their transformative agency. ICTs and cyberspace are transformative technologies, changing society in a number of ways. They are presently facilitating a process of restructuring, radically altering social, cul- tural, political, institutional and economic life.” [4] “Cyberspace” literally means ‘navigable space’ and comes from the Greek “kyber” (to navigate). This term became popular since William Gibson’s 1984 novel Neuromancer, cyberspace there is a navigable, digital space of net- worked computers accessible from computer consoles; a visual, colourful, electronic, Cartesian datascape known as ‘The Matrix’ where companies and individuals interact with, and trade in, information. Now it’s not one homogeneous space; it is a myriad of rapidly expanding cyberspaces, each providing a different form of digital interaction and communication. In gen- eral, they can be categorised into those existing within the technologies of the Internet, those within virtual re- ality, and conventional telecommunications such as the phone and the fax, although because of a rapid conver- gence of technologies new hybrid spaces are emerging. Importantly this “virtual” space doesn’t exist on it’s own, but merges with our regular physical space. Cyberspace The Internet is just one part of the new bigger space which is restruc- turing our life “Things occur or exist in relation to space and time.” [3] — But which space?! “Cyberspace” l Importantly this “virtual” space doesn’t exist on it’s own, but merges with our regular physical spaceg p y p their real importance – why they matter – centres on their transformative agency. ICTs and cyberspace are transformative technologies, changing society in a number of wayb
16 17 Why the Internet? In order to understand why do we need internet in the city and what it can cause it’s important to look at its social aspects, which is one of the very discussed topics nowadays. One of the most important researches of this might be found in the book ”The Internet in Ev- eryday Life” edited by Barry Wellman and Caro- line Haythornthwaite. It gathers different essays on various aspects of the Internet affecting daily life: comparing the Internet use in different time of day and different countries, talking about civic engagement and social interaction on internet, understanding its impact on other daily activities and involvement into offline communications, new forms of work and experiences in different fields. Mainly it tries to answer the number of questions: • Does using the Internet make people happier or unhappier? • Is the Internet empowering, or is it a tool of social control? • Is the Internet addicting? • Does virtual community erode face to face com- munity? [6] In many of essays authors try to understand whether in reality we’re facing the utopian or dystopian model of the Internet development. Former one is suggesting that online communication makes everything better and more ef- ficient, gives people opportunity to connect to those far away and find new friends and knowledge destroying the physical and space limits. Dystopian on the contrary argues that this enthusiasm about the Internet is false and that this engagement into long-distance communication will affect physically tied communities, cause alienation, social dis- engagement and loss of “real” to “virtual”. However none of those models turn to be com- pletely true in reality. According to researchers people who are more active in online commu- nication turn to be more active offline as well. (Even more than could be observed in research of 2002 nowadays we see real and virtual unit- ing a lot as we passed from the time of chat- rooms and forums with imaginary avatars and nicknames to structured social networks web- sites for people with real names.) “The blossoming of the Internet has eliminated the financial cost of long- distance communication, reduced the time and psychological cost of contacting near and far away peo- ple. Although some community ties function solely online, so-called “virtual communities” , in practice, most people use whatever means are necessary to stay in contact with community members: in-person, by telephone, as well as the Internet. Contrary to dystopian predictions, new communication technol- ogies do not disconnect people from communities. Computer-mediated communication reinforces exist- ing communities, establishing contact and encourag- ing support where none may have existed before.”[7] Social Effects of the Internet “If you do not care about net- works, the networks will care about you, anyway. For as long as you want to live in society, at this time and in this place, you will have to deal with the network society. Because we live in the Internet Galaxy.” [5] Despite many concerns active users of the In- ternet are also more active in the offline com- munication If you do not care about net works, the networks will care about you, anyway people who are more active in online commu- nication turn to be more active offline as well. ogies do not disconnect people from communities Computer-mediated communication reinforces exist- ng communities, establishing contact and encourag- ing support where none may have existed before. new communication technol-
18 Why the Internet? 19 Why the Internet? Interesting aspect of these debates is in evaluating the social capital changes with use of Internet and what Information revolution has done to communi- ties in details. In this fields commonly expressed fears included: • The weakening of private community: social con- tact with kin, friends, workmates, and neighbors. • The decline of public community: gatherings in pub- lic places, involvement in voluntary organizations, civic concerns, and commitment to community. • The disengagement from community: positive atti- tudes towards community life and willingness to contribute to the well-being of the community [8] To understand that researchers have studied different forms of social capital: 1. Network capital: the frequency of social contact with friends, relatives, and workmates. This is the private side of community. 2. Civic engagement: participation in voluntary organizations and political activities affords opportunities for people to bond, create joint accomplishments, and collectively articulate their de- mands. Such civic engagement is the public side of community. 3. Sense of community: social capital consists of more than interpersonal interaction and civic engagement. When people have a strong attitude toward community – a motivated and responsible sense of belonging – they should mobilize their social capital more willingly and effectively. This is the attitudinal side of community. The evidences for analysis came from a web survey of a large web survey of North American visitors to the National Geographic Society website. And in the end research’s results suggest that the Internet is increasing social capital, civic engagement, and developing a sense of belonging to online com- munity. People not only have more relationships than in pre-Internet times, they are in more frequent contact with their relationships, and the strengthen- ing of the bonds through more frequent contact means that ties can be more readily mobilized for aid. “Research shows no single Internet effect. At a time of spatially dispersed community, the Internet facili- tates social contact that supplements face-to-face and telephone contact. At a time of declining civic engagement, the Internet provides tools for those already involved to increase their engagement. At a time of partial identity with multiple personal com- munities, the Internet provides another means for feeling connected with friends and kin. Rather than weakening other forms of community, those who are more active offline are more active online – and vice versa. In this way, people are incorporating the Internet into their everyday lives even as the Inter- net is quietly fostering the changing composition of social capital.” [8] It should be considered however that this research was performed in the years before spread of Facebook and other social networking services becoming es- sential in our lives, which apparently should only emphasize all the effects discussed above. 1. Network capital: the Civic engagement: p 3. Sense of community: s: no single Internet effect Rather than weakening other forms of community, those who are more active offline are more active online – and vice versa. In this way, people are incorporating thee versa. I Internet into their everyday lives even as the Inter- net is quietly fostering the changing composition of social capital
20 21 Why the Internet? Public spaces for many centuries were the main gathering points for communi- ties, but new communication models are changing their relevance. For exam- ple, now we don’t need to gather in the city squares to discuss problems with fellow citizens, online forums do this jobs of physical spots. And new models of people’s connections ask for different space organisation. “Designers need to know how the world actually functions rather than trying to force their interac- tions into misspecified templates. People live and work in networks, not in groups. Realizing this can aid the design and use of the right computer tools for our times.” [9] “In our century information and communication tech- nologies are changing space-time relations, redefin- ing our views on materiality and spatiality and the way people connect to the places. Cyberspace exist- ing due to them extends our social interaction pro- viding new media.” [4] Rapid development of telecommunications in the past century has changed our lifestyles, the way we connect, interact and behave and apparently — how do we use spaces and relate with those around. Public spaces are different for different publics. Barry Wellman puts it short and clear in “Little Boxes, Glo- calization, and Networked Individualism” He tries to warn those involved in “digital cities” issues not to mistaken the old ways of thinking of communities and accept new reality instead. According to him we’ve passed from Little boxes organization, through Glocal- ization to Networked Individualism. Each of them deserves a bit of explana- tion. “The “little boxes” metaphor (from Malvena Reynolds’ 1963 song) connotes people socially and cognitively encapsulated by homogeneous, broadly-embracing groups.”[9] Little boxes is the model of traditional pre-telecommunication society where people were mostly communicating with fellow members of the few groups to which they belong: at home, in the neighborhood, at work, or in voluntary or- ganizations. These groups often have boundaries for inclusion and structured, hierarchical, organization: supervisors and employees, parents and children, pastors and churchgoers, organizational executives and members. In such a society, each interaction is in its place: one group at a time. What’s important is that this groups of interacting people require specifically designed spaces. And they find them in churches, town squares, cafes, bars, clubs and many other traditional public spaces. “Glocalization” is a neologism meaning the combina- tion of intense local and extensive global interac- tion.”[9] Transition from little boxes to glocalisation was driven by revolutionary de- velopments in both transportation and communication. It was a move away from a solidary group in a single locale to contact between people in different places and multiple social networks. Households and worksites became impor- tant centers for networking; neighborhoods became less important. Also social changes like liberalized divorce law added much to this transition. Glocalization means the establishment of network of places. People on this stage can interact both within and without local neighborhood. They can find friends by interest in other places and keep connected by means of telecom- Cyberspace vs. Public Space Telecommunications moved us from local com- munities to distant networks, requiring new ap- proach to spatial design “Designers need to know how the world actually functions rather than trying to force their interac tions into misspecified template “In our century information and communication tech nologies are changing space-time relations, redefin- ing our views on materiality and spatiality and the way people connect to the places. C this groups of interacting people require specifically d h i h hdesigned spaces. Andd W “The “little boxes” m “Glocalization” i” Households and worksites became impor- tant centers for networking; neighborhoods became less important. A
Local community “Little boxes” Glocalization Person-to-person networks Just as global society Simpsons family is very much affected by the ICT changing its social communication and life organisation Simpsons’ case perfectly demonstrates also how in reality (even cartoon one) different modes of communication coexist in con- temporary society even though main vector is moving and more people become networked individuals abandoning local commu- nities participation. Just like in old times Homer likes to meet his friends at Moe’s while Marge is actively partici- pating in church community. However real contemporary family’s anchor is their living room connected to global world by TV-news and telephone. Unlike her parents Lisa finds like-minded friends in different places using the Internet. (She also likes playing poker there.) Despite his love to TV Homer tries all new de- vices and they’re changing his relations to oth- ers. (Though it’s still unclear whether some- thing will make him spend more time outdoors)
24 Why the Internet? 25 Why the Internet? munication and travelling. However this telecommunication is still a landline phone and a desktop computer connected to the Internet with a cable. There- fore it is more of the network of places than of people. If the landline phone rings in the apartment or restaurant it can be addressing anyone who’s in there. This brings another specificity — connection being feature of a place pushes people to stay in that place if communication with people far away is impor- tant for them. And it tends to be more and more important as people con- nected by shared interest tend to have better time together rather than those who’re just physically close. For the spaces: “Community interactions have moved inside the pri- vate home — where most entertaining, phone-calling and emailing take place — and away from chatting with patrons in public spaces such as bars, street corners and coffee shops… People rarely know their neighbours and don’t establish any close connections with them if communicate at all… By contrast to tra- ditional meetings in village squares or pubs, friends and relatives get together in private as small sets of singles or couples, but rarely as communal groups.” [9] Then mobile phones and ubiquitous internet connection change this picture again: “Wireless world affords networked individualism, with each person switching between ties and net- works” [9] Now people are connected as individuals not rooted to the households or work units, the technology affords shifting of work and community ties from linking people-in-places to linking people wherever they are. With portable communication physical context becomes less important. Physi- cal surroundings must be described, rather than assumed because people have uncertain knowledge about the immediate whereabouts and social contexts of their mobile network members. Today “private cyberspace” can follow person everywhere competing with real public spaces in people’s attention field. However transition from place-to-place connection to person-to-person is not the end of it. Online world allows people to continue with role-to-role commu- nication. When the physical presence of real person is not necessary we start to connect with people on basis of some narrow social roles. Professional cor- respondence is one of the most obvious examples of it, but Internet provides much more of those when talking about forums and different communities of people united by the shared specific interest. All this stages of development have their manifestations in people behaviour in the city and spaces that are required for it. It is especially interesting as nowadays we still observe the mixture of all the mentioned social organiza- tion types which causes interesting design challenges in terms of space and services. connection being feature of a place pushes people to stay in that place if communication with people far away is impor- d btant for them. “Community interactions have moved inside the pri- vate home — … People rarely know their neighbours and don’t establish any close connections with them if communicate at all… friends and relatives get together in private as small sets ofp singles or couples, but rarely as communal groups “Wireless world affords networked individualism Today “private cyberspace” can follow person everywhere competing with real public spaces in people’s attention field
26 27 Why the Internet? In modern society social relations are formed by spatial concerns. People and their sites of production and consumption are organised in relation to a spatial logic. It can be said that cities developed in order to overcome time with space and were located close to raw materials sources or routes of trade. Sites of pro- duction were located in relation to materials and markets to minimise costs and maximise sales; and sites of consumption located in places that would maximise sales. Some analysts now suppose that ICTs make this modern logic of space obsolete and challenge space–time relations as conceived in modern- ist thought. It is argued that ICT is revolutionising how business is conducted, transform- ing patterns of work leading to urban-regional restructuring. The use of In- tranets, is facilitating globalising processes such as office automation, telework and the adoption of back-offices operations leading to a radical reorganization of corporations and significant changes in employment patterns. Urban areas are restructuring to gain competitive advantage through cyberspace, and some sections of industry are decentralising to the suburbs and even other areas/ countries to take advantage of cheaper rents and skilled workforces, while remaining in constant and instantaneous contact via ICTs. However things are not that simple and most of futuristic scenarios with cities not being anymore needed and all work and meetings performed on distance from rural areas have never come true. The “information age” or the “network society” turn to be not that immaterial or anti-geographic. “It encompasses a complex range of restructuring processes that become highly materialized in real places, as efforts are made to equip buildings, insti- tutions, and urban spaces with the kinds of pre- mium electronic and physical connectivity neces- sary to allow them to assert nodal status within the dynamic flows, and changing divisions of labour, of digital capitalism.”[10] Even in the very matter of delivering the Internet the greatest challenge of multiplying telecommunications firms in large cities is what is the problem of the “last mile”: getting satellite installations, optic fibres, and whole net- works through the expensive “local loop.” The challenge is to thread networks under the roads and pavements of the urban fabric. Up to 80% of the costs of a network are associated with the business of getting it into the ground in highly congested, and contested, urban areas. This hard material basis for the “digital revolution” is neglected but crucial. Focusing on it allows to reveal the complex social and technological practices that surround and support the explosion of digitally mediated economic and cultural flows. Physical reality is still crucial for us as human beings and will continue to be an issue for a long time yet. “One must not overlook the fact that people still live in a material world and require food, shelter and human contact. In cases where services can be decentralised, they still have to locate in areas of suitable skilled labour and conventional transport links. In other words, although ICTs work to destroy space–time relations, to render social relations ‘spaceless’, other spatial practices, forms and forces resist and work against this attrition. Consequently, we are witnessing simultaneous pressures of spatial fragmentation (decentralisation) and unity (centrali- ICT and Cyberspace vs. Spatial Organisation of Cities Despite obviously changing spatial relations we still haven’t got to “death of the distance” and cyberspace can even help maintaining so- cial authenticity In modern society social relations are formed by spatial concerns. Peop p es. Some analysts now suppose that ICTs make this modern logic of space obsolete and challenge space–time relations as conceived in modern- ist thought. t ICT is revolutionising how business is conducted, transform- ing patterns of work leading to urban-regional restructuring i f g Urban areas dare restructuring to gain competitive advantage through cyberspac The “information age” or the “network society” turn to be not that immaterial hior anti-geographic. However t Up to 80% of the costs of a network are associated with the business of getting it into the ground in highly congested, and contested, urban areas. Thi on” is neglected but crucial F people still live in a material world and require food,ve in a material world and require food, shelter and human contact. Ico although ICTs work to destroy space–time relationn other spatial practices, forms and forces resist and work against this attrition we are witnessing simultaneous pressures of spatia fragmentation (decentralisation) and unity (
28 Why the Internet? 29 Why the Internet? sation)… Indeed, a complex interplay between local and global forces exists as some places use and develop their localism, their uniqueness, to try and attract visitors and business.”[4] Besides the pure pragmatism of production and consumption processes, also emotional bonds to places and their social aspects are important. In “Place and Placelessness”, Relph explores the relationship between people and places. He posits that there is a powerful relationship between the two, to the extent that “people are their place and a place is its people”. He argues that people develop and need attachments to places which of course can vary a lot though. As an opposite to attachment “Placelessness” is “a weakening of the identity of places to the point where they not only look alike, but feel alike and of- fer the same bland possibilities for experience”. Now as telecommunications threaten local identities and spread homogenous experience we have to be aware of this fact and try to design connection of cyber and real spaces in a way which would empower the latter. “Cyberspace can provide an antidote to placelessness by providing alternative and more attractive authen- tic places. If we take the definition of place by Jess and Massey – places are characterized by providing a setting for everyday activities, by having linkages to other locations, and providing a ‘sense of place’ – then there can be little doubt that new places, and new spatialities, are being formed online. Moreover, these places seem to be authentic as they embody a sense of belonging.” [4] On the Internet individualistic, like-minded people join forces to form public- based communities; cyberspace offers the opportunity to reclaim public space and recreate online the essence and nature of authentic places which are dis- appearing in geographic space. “people are their place and a place is its people” places are characterized by providing a setting for everyday activities, by having linkages to other locations, and providing a ‘sense of place’ – then there can be little doubt that new places, and new spatialities, are being formed online
30 31 Why the Internet? The Internet and Public Realm The public realm includes urban public spaces, such as a city’s streets, parks, and plazas, and is part of a much larger public sphere. What is specific about it is hosting planned en- counters with existing acquaintances, as well as serendipitous encounters with strangers. The public realm is different from all public spaces because it includes only those “locals” or social settings that minimize the segregation of people based on “life-styles”: values, opinions, gender, race, ethnicity, stage in the life course, and other forms of diversity. “The proportion of copresent others in the public realm is dramatically in favor of the unfamiliar and leans toward a diversity of interests, behaviors, and beliefs rather than to the familiar or the homophi- lous. It stands in contrast to the private realm, those social settings that are principally the domain of intimate, homophilous social ties — generally kinship ties, with whom people share many to most things in common.” [11] The public realm is also differentiated from those spaces that may be pub- lic or “third places”, but are nonetheless “home territory”, in that people are surrounded by others with whom they share much in common, such as in a neighborhood, small town, or workplace. Belonging to the public realm can be defined by existence of social diversity and a low density of acquaintanceship. The public realm provides exposure across ethnic, social, behavioral, and ideo- logical boundaries which gives access to messages ideologically divergent or absent from the intimate networks of the private realm. “The public realm can provide a provocative, poten- tially disruptive, and contested setting that, although incomplete, is an important component of pub- lic deliberation in an increasingly shrinking public sphere.” [11] “The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century — the world’s town square, classroom, market- place, coffeehouse and night club.” [1] Serendipitous meetings with diverse others are essential for social life of cities, but they don’t usually occur online The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century The public realm can provide a provocative, poten- tially disruptive, and contested setting that, although incomplete, is an important component of pub- lic deliberation in an increasingly shrinking public sphere.”
32 Why the Internet? 33 Why the Internet? Many analysts consider that the public sphere, created in the period of En- lightenment, is rapidly disappearing to be replaced by spaces governed by pri- vate concerns. “For theorist Jurgen Habermas, when the public sphere emerged in the early eighteenth century, it did so in the context of the cafe, the learned society, and the salon. Together with the rituals of coffee drink- ing, the cafe increasingly provided both forum and fuel for critical debate about the latest pamphlets, newsletters, and broadsides. But the public sphere was never so much a physical place as a discursive site in which a literate public could conduct rational and critical debate.”[11] Of course the Internet nowadays takes many discursive functions of public sphere in general, but it’s difficult for it to simulate proper public realm. An- other interesting aspect is Internet use in the public realm which has remained relatively unexplored. This type of use carries with it significant implications for urban planning, the structure of community, and the nature of democracy. “The upsurge in Internet access in public spaces may reshape the public realm. Because of its location, it may revitalize, repopulate, and improve the safety of public spaces. Because of the electronic connec- tivity it offers, it may reduce social inequalities and increase the use of public spaces. As a result of the diversity of those who are copresent, it may increase social cohesion, tolerance, and exposure to diverse messages. And, given that participation in both phys- ical and virtual spaces can contribute to public dis- course, it may develop political action and stimulate democracy. Or, it may not. Wireless Internet use may push out existing public life; previously private activi- ties may shrink the public realm; and the availability of this technology on the street, in parks, and in pla- zas may do nothing to increase exposure to diverse ideas and diverse others, but, instead, contribute to existing trends toward privatism that are augment- ing the structure and composition of people’s social networks.” [11] There are a lot of hopes regarding how public internet connection in outdoor spaces can bring people back to great diversity exposure and local community participation, however justification of these possibilities require a lot of socio- ethnographic field work. the public sphere was never so much a physical place as a discursive site in which a literate public could conduct rational and critical debate. [ the Internet nowadays takes many discursive functions of public sphere in general, but it’s difficult for it to simulate proper public realm. Al f i i
It might seem that Wi-Fi is losing its popular- ity with the spread of mobile Internet technol- ogy and people paying to have connectivity from their mobile devices wherever they go. It’s true that Wi-Fi cannot compete with 3G in roaming freedom and wide coverage, how- ever it has its own advantages. The main one — it operates in free spectrum and therefor will remain cheaper than 3G. At the moment when our communication culture gets more and more video influences and traffic demand grows outrageously, this quality of Wi-Fi will guarantee its further popularity. Mobile oper- ators themselves seek to offload their net- works and turn to Wi-Fi for it. Why Wi-Fi?
36 37 Why Wi-Fi? Why Not 3G? Development and diffusion of Wi-Fi networks has par- alleled that of Mobile Broadband services — Internet subscriptions for mobile phones, enabled by the third generation of mobile telecommunications technology (“3G”). Wi-Fi technologies afford high throughput and fast speeds in a localised area (usually a radius of 100 meters around a wireless access point), while 3G networks enable roaming Internet access at the ex- pense of speed. But unlike Wi-Fi, mobile broadband providers operate in licensed spectra that carry large costs for providers and end users. This limits the af- fordable data capacity of 4G subscriptions. On the other side of cost problem is the development of media services that people like to use especially video streaming. Growth of video culture is ob- vious in updates of services like Instagram allowing capturing clips as well as photos now and such trends as traditional paper magazines (like i-D and Dazed) rolling its video editorials. Even as 3G and 4G networks expand and gain speed, Wi-Fi is proving even more popular, especially with carriers looking to offload their cellular traffic, the networks are already congested in many parts of Europe because of a lack of allocated spectrum so telecom operators already search ways to offload the network in the heavy usage hours starting to offer Wi-Fi services to their sub- scribers. “Mobile data offloading is the use of complementary network technologies for delivering data originally targeted for cellular networks. The main comple- mentary network technologies used for mobile data offloading are Wi-Fi, femtocell and Integrated Mobile Broadcast. It is predicted that mobile data offload- ing will become a new industry segment due to the surge of mobile data traffic.” [12] European Comission has conducted the “Study on the importance of Wi-Fi & the socioeconomic benefits of using small cell infrastructures” and has pub- lished report suggesting promoting further offload and various Wi-Fi initiatives to deliver the best Internet access to people. Wi-Fi is more sustainable option which also has more connection to location and should work together with 3G Current fastest Wi-Fi devel- oped is claimed to reach 7 Gbps speed, while commercially available one is passing 1 Gbps. Meanwhile the last developed broadband standart LTE-Ad- vanced is just reaching 1 Gbps, and today users can get around 100 Mbps. Projected macrocell capacity and traffic demand: fastest Wi-Fi devel- oped is claimed to reach 7 Gbps speed, commercially available one is passing 1 Gbps. he last developed roadband standart LTE-Ad- vanced is just reaching 1 Gbps, and today users can get around 100 Mbps. while 3G pense of speed . Wi-Fi technologies afford high throughput and fast speeds in a localised areaf d i networks enable roaming Internet access at the e But unlike Wi-Fi, mobile broadband providers operate in licensed spectra that carry large costs for providers and end users h carriers looking to offload their cellular traffic, Mobile data offloading is the use of complementary network technologies for delivering data originally targeted for cellular networks. Study on the importance of Wi-Fi & the socioeconomic benefits of using small cell infrastructures” a
38 Why Wi-Fi? 39 Why Wi-Fi? “In 2012 71% of all wireless data traffic that was delivered to smartphones and tablets in the EU was delivered via Wi-Fi. It is estimated that this figure will grow to 78% by 2016. It is predicted that in 2016 up to €200 billion in network cost reductions can be expected from data traffic offloading chiefly to Wi- Fi.“ [13] The surprising results show how the lower cost to consumers of using Wi-Fi hotspots is changing behaviour, and the study recommends extra spectrum be made available across the EU to support this rising demand. “• Wi-Fi and LTE small cells are complementary to one another rather than substitutes. • Off-load solutions potentially permit much greater spectrum re-use over a given geographic area. • New Wi-Fi equipment will enable higher bit rates by deploying wider channels (80 MHz or 160 MHz). • Automatic authentication processes for accessing Wi-Fi networks will largely overcome the historic complexity to connect manually to Wi-Fi, namely of the connection and authentication process. • Solutions that allow individuals to share their bandwidth via Wi-Fi and a number of Wi-Fi roam- ing aggregators are making public Wi-Fi access more convenient and affordable for many users.” [13] So nowadays there is no anymore question of which Internet connection is better in the city, it’s understood that different kinds of it are needed and they should work together to use their advantages for the best overall user experience. However to be really used by citizens public Wi-Fi service should offer some experience really different from that of 3G internet: easier access, higher band- width and less traffic restrictions, better usability, etc. Mobile internet will always maintain advantage of roaming, but it can be seen as a special feature of Wi-Fi — being connected to the local scale and therefore able to change with specific places in the city. Wi-Fi is embedded in space making, connecting tan- gible physical layer with intangible online world and this possibilities should be further explored to design better connected city experience. Wi-Fi and LTE small cells are complementary toc one another rather than substitutes.
40 41 Trends in 3G Some elements of 3G world can be interesting ap- plied to Wi-Fi as well Sharing Wi-Fi: The Karma hotspot is a tiny, pocket-sized, pay-as-you-go mobile hotspot that offers fast mobile data when you need it, either at home when the cable goes out or when you’re on the go and can’t find a Wi-Fi network to use. It comes pre-loaded with 1GB of data on account, and as it’s used, it can be recharged with more data which never expires, and there is no monthly fees or charges to deal with. 1GB of data is $14. Peculiar moment is that Karma prompts sharing data keeping access open to others, so when someone else accesses the hotspot, they get 100MB for free and this fact adds also 100MB to user’s account. It’s a bonus for being social and encouraging friends to join Karma’s Wi-Fi network. Paid traffic: Recently AT&T has announced the new offer “Sponsored Data” — ser- vice that enables companies to sponsor the data usage for specific content on behalf of AT&T wireless customers. With AT&T Sponsored Data customers can browse content from sponsors without impacting their monthly data plan allowance. For example, a customer may access an application for healthcare from their insurer. Within the application, there is an educational video. The customer sees the AT&T Sponsored Data name, identifying that the video is sponsored. When the customer clicks the icon to play the video, the data usage incurred while watching the video is not applied to the customer’s monthly data allow- ance. Amazon was using this model on its own devices for a long time already: Kindle e-readers with 3G has unlimited mobile broadband. Device owners can use the connection for downloading e-books when out of Wi-Fi range and can also use the web through an experimental browser. Amount of traffic in browser is limited, but owners can download as many books as they want from Amazon, books are delivered via “Whispernet”, typically in less than 60 seconds. “Sponsored Data” vice that enables companies to sponsor the data usage for specific content on behalf of AT&T wireless customers. Kindle e-readers with 3G has unlimited mobile broadband. Karma prompts sharing data keeping access opena to others, so when someone else accesses the hotspot, they get 100MB for free and this fact adds also 100MB to user’s account
42 43 Why Wi-Fi? Telefonica Europe is a European broadband and telecommunications company that trades as O2. It uses Wi-Fi network to start traffic offloading project for the future. First it launched 100 hotspots for London Olympics, but after went on with the project. O2’s first hotzone covered high-traffic areas in London’s high-tourism West End. O2’s project has two notable distinctions: 1) Service is free to all comers, whether or not they are existing O2 subscribers and 2) The Wi-Fi network is serving as a blueprint for O2’s future small cells rollout. “Once you’ve signed-up, that’s it. No passwords or usernames to connect. Every time you come into an O2 wifi area, we’ll connect you automatically. And it won’t eat into your mobile’s data allowance. Just quick Wifi, where you need it.” [14] The offer is up to 10GB a month, user can keep track of how much they’ve used on the online account page showing how much was used in the last 30 days. It exists in thousands of Wi-Fi-enabled locations including McDonald’s, Costa, Pizza Hut, Debenhams, TONI&GUY, Strada, Subway, All-Bar-One and many more — even on the streets and other public places. All you need to do is register using the free O2 Wifi app. Once you’re on, you’re on. No username. No password. You’ll connect automatically whenever you’re in a Hotspot. Easy. You can check your emails, upload photos on Face- book or watch those funny cat videos on YouTube. It’s up to ten times faster than 3G. [14] O2 O2 app functionality includes: • Register for O2 Wi-Fi, wherever in the UK (not just in a Hot- spot). • Find and get directions to a Hotspot, even when offline. • Manage settings (and any other Wi-Fi devices) on O2 Wi-Fi. • Get answers to questions. Users have to be over 18 to register and accept terms and conditions. Besides Wi-Fi O2 experiments with different additional services improving customers’ experience. Exclusive for O2 customers, Priority brings you the best offers from high street brands and local inde- pendent stores. With prize draws, experiences, exclu- sive videos, gigs and sporting events, Priority makes every day a little more special. [14] User launches the app and phone will instantly load a selection of the day’s best offers. The closest to user are at the top of the list. User can get your voucher immediately or save it for later to plan ahead. To redeem voucher has to be presented in any store nationwide. Offers are avail- able to all O2 mobile customers. O2 uses Wi-Fi network to offload traffic in the future The offer is up to 10GB a month, user can keep track of how much they’ve used on the online account page showing how much was used in the last 30 days. O2 app functionality includes: additional services improving customers’ experience. Priority brings you the best offers from high street brands and local inde-s pendent stores.
44 45 Why Wi-Fi? AT&T is another example of telecommunication operator providing Wi-Fi con- nection as a part of its service. It creates numerous Wi-Fi spots in public zones both on its own and in partnership programs as in case of NYC. It also provides additional supportive environment, for example charging stations powered by solar energy. As a partnership with city government it provides free Wi-Fi to all new yorkers not depending on their mobile operator. Many places are in the parks as well as indoor locations (than 32,000 such as hospitality locations, retail stores, sta- dium restaurants and more). Specially designed app has various features: remembers to connect to user’s AT&T favorite spot, finds Wi-Fi on the go, automatically turns Wi-Fi on when close to the hotspot to save battery, etc. Many of popular smartphones can switch seamlessly from the 3G network to Wi-Fi with auto-authentication performed by the app as well. App helps to increase Wi-Fi connections while minimizing cellular data consumption. AT&T Smart Wi-Fi helps to find, auto-connect and remember available hotspots in places user connects frequent. It also maxi- mizes the battery life and displays Wi-Fi and cellular data usage in real-time so user can keep tabs on her data plan usage. Running quietly in the background, AT&T Smart Wi-Fi uses hotspot auto-detection to make it easy to discover, select and build a list of available hotspots. It also helps maximize battery life by staying in sleep mode until it recognizes user’s near a previously-detected hotspot. Moreover, AT&T Smart Wi-Fi creates a hotspot opportunity list by logging and mapping hotspots already seen -- but not connected to previously. By doing this, user can readily access relevant hotspots the next time she’s in that area and want to connect. A&T provides Wi-Fi both for its own custom- ers and other users working in partnership with many city councils for common good As a partnership with city government it provides free Wi-Fi to all new yorkers not depending on their mobile operator. Specially designed app
Wi-Fi is a new kind of urban infrastructure. It is different from previous kind by its intan- gible nature and flexibility of change. It brings together affordances of many levels: of tan- gible environment on which user experiences it first, of electromagnetic field which we cannot sense, but it defines the spread of sig- nal and therefore experience as well, and in the end it has universal Internet connection affordance suggesting what people can do in cyberspace. These level should be understand deeper to know what can be redesigned. What is Wi-Fi?
48 49 What is Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi as Infrastructure “Cities are layerings of infra- structures. We read infrastruc- ture broadly here: not just pow- er, water, and sewage, but other infrastructures that define elements of the experience of space.” [15] Wi-Fi relies on both material an intangible layers of infrastructure which causes new relation of it to the cities Wi-Fi is a technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or con- nect to the internet wirelessly using microwaves in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands. The Wi-Fi Alliance defines Wi-Fi as any “wireless local area network (WLAN) products that are based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE) 802.11 standards”. However, modern WLANs are based on them. Wi-Fi came to prominence at the turn of the mil- lennium when 802.11 standards were refined and personal computer manufacturers began to market Wi-Fi equipped computers. With the distribution of affordable wireless routers, Wi-Fi quickly became ubiquitous. Free Wi-Fi ‘hotspots’ can now be ex- pected where there are ‘intersecting flows’ of com- merce and people. As common Wi-Fi router allows delivering Internet connection to a number of users on relative distance it became the main mean of providing connectivity in the cities both by private and public actors, so the whole Wi-Fi infrastruc- ture emerged and has to be explored in context of the city. Infrastructure is a way of rearranging resources, wirelss infrastructure is based on physical devices, but then flows away from tangible realm into the electro- magnetic fields landscape which has different laws than our visible objects. However all the elements of it are important to the resulting user experience. “Far from the mythical distributed ideal that ideolo- gists of technology claim it to be, the network has its own physicality, its own material presence. Net- works rely on relatively few high-bandwidth trans- continental and transoceanic fiber-optic lines, on even fewer Tier-1 carriers that sell space on these lines, and on still fewer mobile-phone operators and last-mile connection (DSL or cable broadband ser- vice) providers that allow the end user to access bandwidth. Interchanges between such networks occur at only a few major peering points, usually one or two major carrier hotels per metropolitan area. This highly centralized system produced by historical factors helps to further concentrate the global city. Not only is this system vulnerable to natural or man- made disasters but it’s all too easy to take advantage of by individuals or governments.” [10] “Cities are layerings of infra- structures that define elements of the experience of space. “Far from the mythical distributed ideal that ideoloythical distributed ideal that id gists of technology claim it to be, the network ha its own physicality, its own material presence
50 What is Wi-Fi? 51 What is Wi-Fi? “We need to think archi- tecturally about the mo- bile and wireless tech- nologies that we develop and deploy, the human side of infrastructures.” [15] But besides the tangible elements of this new infrastructure that are more or less understandable to us, new wireless layer is also physical and real, the mo- ment that many tend to forget about. It leads us to the virtual world, but is not virtual itself yet: “The fascinating thing about the move from the sys- tems we built on the wired internet to those that we experience through wireless and mobile networks is that we are creating not a virtual but a thoroughly physical infrastructure, and we need to think about it as one that is interwoven with the existing physical structure of space.” [16] There is always a complex interaction between space, infra- structure, culture, and experience. The spaces into which new technologies are deployed are not stable, not uniform, and not given. Technology can destabilize and transform these interac- tions, but will only ever be one part of the mix. Infrastructure is “relational and ecological — means different things to different groups and is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment, inseparable from them. It also is frequently mundane to the point of boredom, involving things such as plugs, standards, and bureaucratic forms” [17] There are different properties of infrastructure: embeddedness, transpar- ency, reach or scope, learned as part of membership, linked to conventions of practice, embodies standards, built on an installed base, becomes visible upon breakdown, and fixed in modular increments. A related concept underscoring several of these properties is that of the invisibility of infrastructure, in that it becomes taken for granted and thereby disappears into the background unless it breaks down. we are creating not a virtual but a thoroughly physical infrastructure, and we need to think about it as one that is interwove with the existing physical structure o space. [ Infrastructure is “relational and ecological — means different things to different groups and is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment,
52 Hertzian space “The rapid expansion of knowledge and technical de- velopment has swept us into a world beyond our grasp; the face of nature is alien once again. Like the forest and the mountains of medieval times, our new environment harbours strange menacing beasts, invisible viruses, at- oms, mesons, protons, cosmic rays, supersonic waves.” [18] Physical properties of wireless signal propagation — the range, signal strength and possible obstacles determine their presence in the environment. The ‘space’ formed by these waves is sometimes referred to as hertzian, be- cause it consists of waves oscillating on frequencies expressed in Hz (SI unit of frequency named after Heinrich Rudolf Hertz). This term is also used to describe “a holistic view of the electronic device and its cultural interac- tions”[19]. The problem with physicality of the hertzian space is that it is extremely difficult to (accurately) perceive and repre- sent, leaving us with a vague idea about how it actually ‘looks’ like. This space is talked about a lot under dif- ferent names William Mitchell called it an ‘electromagnetic terrain’ — both intricate and invisible, and only hinted at by the presence of antennas, the common fact is that interest to this space only grows and help understanding how to deal with its ef- fects on our lives. On basic physical level any wireless connection is made of electromagnetic waves. They set specific constraints which should be understood for the best user experience ‘space’ formed by these waves is sometimes referred to as hertzian, be- cause it consists of waves oscillating on frequencies expressed in Hz that interest to this space only grows and help understanding how to deal with its ef- fects on our lives.
54 What is Wi-Fi? “Whereas cyberspace is a metaphor that spa- tializes what happens in computers distributed around the world, ra- dio space is actual and physical, even though our senses detect only a tiny part of it.” [19] “The twentieth century has seen space evolve into a complex soup of electromag- netic radiation.” [19] “The extrasensory nature of electromagnetic radia- tion often leads to its treat- ment as something concep- tual — which easily becomes confused with the notional, although of course it is phys- ical and exists in space.” [19] “We are experiencing a new kind of connection to our artifactual envi- ronment.” [19] “Electronic objects are dis- embodied machines with ex- tended invisible skins every- where.” [19] “It helps us think of electronic objects in “hertzian” terms, as interconnected fields rather than discrete things.” [19] “Designers direct little at- tention toward the possi- ble sensual and poetic ex- perience of this industrially produced new materiality.” [19] “All electronic products are hybrids of radiation and matter” [19]
56 The notion of affordances applied to physical (tangible) ob- jects is more or less clear to all of us. There are simple physi- cal and ergonomic laws which make us use object in certain ways in the first point. These are perfectly demonstrated by Munari’s chair research. Then we add psychological, social and cultural elements to it. Each space is constructed and each settings have their own affordances: even though you can lie on any bench in the street, normally you don’t do it, and even homeless people prefer benches in deserted spaces, not in the middle of crowded square in the daylight. But this theory goes beyond the simple tangible interaction and finds its way also to human-computer field. First of all hertzian space has its own very physical, but not tangible and per- ceived by us, affordances. There are limits of signal strength, interference with other devices, obstacles, even weather and daylight affect the spread of radio waves. They all define how we perceive the interaction even though we don’t always realize what’s really happening. Second level of it is defined by Internet provider or hardware which results in how fast is connection, how much traffic do we get and in the end — what can we do online. Dial-up connection was completely different from modern broadband. We couldn’t imagine streaming video with it. The same way price of 3G traffic stops users from downloading content. And in terms of offer digital world allowed uncommon before flexibility. It’s quite difficult to turn off some exact user from water pipe, it takes a lot of work at least, it’s much easier to control electricity grid, but difficult to diversify the offer, and with wireless communication it’s just in the nature of it. Affrodances of Wi-Fi Infra- structure Experienced Wi-Fi infrastructure is a mix of elements of different levels which provide new flexibility in design “The term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used.” [20] affordance efers to the perceived and actual properties o he thing, primarily those fundamental properties hat determine just how the thing could possibly be used. [2 simple physi- cal and ergonomic laws which make us use object in certain ways in Then we add psychological, social and cultural elements to it hertzian space affordances limits of signal strength, interference with other devices, obstacles, even weather and daylight affect the spread of di Th ll dradio waves. Ti T Second level of Internet provider or hardware w d i Internet provider o how fast is connection, how much traffic do we get what an we do online.
58 What is Wi-Fi? 59 What is Wi-Fi? Then tangible world doesn’t leave us even when connecting to Internet. We’re still using devices for it, so we need to sit properly, hold them somehow, they need electricity and screen protection from sunlight and so on and so forth. Surrounding environment adds to this defining what’s acceptable and not to be done in the specific settings. Cultural code changes it also for different places in the world, Italian public space is different from Russian and even Milanese from Roman. Considering all these facts it’s wrong also to think that “cyber-behaviour” at home and outdoors in public won’t change. “Nothing takes place in a vacuum. As Paul Dourish observes: “interaction is intimately connected with the settings in which it occurs.” His theory of “embod- ied interaction” insists that interactions derive their meaning by occurring in real time and real space and, above all, among and between real people. In Dourish’s view, the character and quality of inter- actions between people and the technical systems they use depend vitally on the fact that both are embedded in the world in specific ways. A video chat is shaped by the fact that I’m sitting in this office, in other words, with its particular arrangement of chair, camera, and monitor.” [21] “interaction is intimately connected wit the settings in which it occurs the character and quality of inter- actions between people and the technical systems depend vitally on the fact that both are embedded in the world in specific ways.
60 61 Wi-Fi Camera Camera that takes “pic- tures” of spaces illumi- nated by Wi-Fi in much the same way that a traditional camera takes pictures of spaces illumi- nated by visible light. Mapping in real space For “Immaterial Wi-Fi Light Painting” project the team used a rod with LED’s attached to it to- gether with Wi-Fi signal reading hardware, then they walked around film- ing the real signal land- scape in the city. Mapping in time Peter Jellitsch was measuring Wi-FI signal strength on different days and then created 3d sculp- ture mapping those tem- poral changes in space. Visualizing Wi-Fi As it’s more difficult to understand affor- dance of something we don’t see, there were numerous at- tempts to visualize hertzian space.
62 63 What is Wi-Fi? Not only professionals and artists are concerned with Wi-Fi landscapes visualization. Users also were in- terested in invisible field with very pragmatic reason — finding open network to connect. This led to the practice of “warchalking” — indicating the presence of nearby wireless networks. Normally a person who have spotted a network would leave a mark in- dicating hotspot’s features and name. These marks were left on walls of the buildings or pavement, obviously with a chalk. Even though with development of digital maps this behaviour became obsolete, it doesn’t mean people lost interest in it, they just continue in the many wireless mapping projects to be found online, ranging from industry-sponsored maps to war-driving or war-flying maps. It destabi- lises distinctions between public and private making visible networks that are supposed to be used by insiders. Sometime “critical design” devices don’t even need to be really produced as their function gets embedded in our behaviour with daily objects. Wi-Fi dows- ing is one of such examples. Interestingly dowsing was a way to find useful re- sources and now Wi-Fi is the main one that we can be searching for in the city. Wifi Dowser (Curious rituals)Wi-Fi Dowsing Rod by David Menting Hertzian space can be manifested through common human be- haviour Daily Life Artifacts warchalking” — indicating the presence of nearby wireless networks.
It might be said that there were two waves of city-wide Wi-Fi infrastructure projects. First it started with the very development of standard when everyone decided to use it for urban spaces just because it seemed cool to have. However at that moment there was not much demand — relatively littler amount of people bringing their laptops outdoors — but the price of infrastructure was high. Now there can be seen new interest in city Wi-Fi as mobile devices became primary com- munication tool and also everyone dreams of smart cities, internet of things and many other ideas which require developed infrastructure. So How Do Cities Make Wi-Fi?
66 67 How Wi-Fi? Besides affordances there is an issue of values that get embeded in the infrastructure Laura Forlano is one of the researches of municipal Wi-Fi initiatives and imple- mentations who argues that they’re not very well understood by general public and therefor suffer from a technological determinism of dominating in this field engineers. According to Forlano there are several key concepts that will be helpful in describing wireless networks: affordances, infrastructure and values. First two were already discussed above, but the concept of values is very important. It allows to build on the affordances of wireless networks and embed a range of socio-cultural, economic and political values into the infrastructures that is designed. There are following questions regarding the embodi- ment of values in the design of technologies: What is the locus of control? Are they transparent or opaque? Do they support balanced information exchange? Do they discriminate against users? Do they enhance or diminish trust? For the purposes of understanding wireless networks these questions can be reframed and expanded: Are wireless networks centralized or decentralized? Are they open or closed? Do they use proprietary or open source software? Are they visible or invisible? Is access free or paid? Ownership model is very important in terms of values, there are several of them for municipal wireless networks: privately-owned networks, public-pri- vate partnerships, publicly-owned and community-owned networks. In the beginning of municipal wireless networks many have struggled to identify ap- propriate business models, failed to create workable private-public partner- ships and, as a result, a number of high-profile projects have been cancelled. Discussions about municipal wireless networks would suffer from a lack of public understanding about the properties of wireless technology. It is impor- tant to understand that due to Wi-Fi constraints, it is unlikely that cities will be fully-covered by the network’s signal. However many debates on municipal Wi-Fi continue promising ubiquitous “anytime, anywhere” connection. “This language assumes that place is irrelevant and homogeneous i.e. one place is just the same as any other place, and therefore ignores social needs and usage patterns.” [22] Instead we should face and use specificity of Wi-Fi, cities should consider their unique advantages, needs and cultures before embarking on projects to build municipal wireless networks. This might allow cities to plan network infra- structures that may not be ubiquitous but that focus on meaningful sites of everyday life rather than merely ‘anytime, anywhere’ connectivity. “A better understanding of the city’s potential users would allow the city to design networks, applica- tions and services that could be tailored to the user’s needs”. [22] Designing networks for people requires concepts that describe human behav- ior. While ubiquity and anytime, anywhere access may describe the technologi- cal promises, people’s needs and uses are located in specific places of meaning, culture and community. Values of City Wi-Fi ‘“If we build it they will come” strategies for communications infrastructure deploy- ment, will fail without a reframing of debates that is linked to local concerns and prac- tices.” [22] “If we build it they will come” strategies will fail without a reframing of debates hat is linked to local concerns and prac tices. [2 key concept in describing wireless networks: Fiaffordances, infrastructure and values values is very important. It allows to build on the affordances ofvery important. It allows to build on the affor wireless networks and embed a range of socio-cultural, economic and political values into the infrastructure that is designed Ownership model privately-owned networks, public-pri- vate partnerships, publicly-owned and community-owned networksblicly-owned and community-owned netw Instead we should face and use specificity of Wi-Fi, cities should consider their unique advantages, needs and cultures before embarking on projects to build municipal wireless networks. “A better understanding of the city’s potential users would allow the city to design networks, applica ions and services that could be tailored to the user needs”. [22] Designing networks for people requires concepts that describe human behav- ior.
68 69 How Wi-Fi? Why and How Cities Do Wi-Fi “Holistic urban planning now needs to have some under- standing of the relationship between the city and, say, GPS, wifi, WIMAX, 3G, social software, APIs, FttN, RFIDs, BIM, mesh networks and a thousand other acronyms and neologisms. It’s confusing, complex and in constant flux, but as Reyner Banham once said: when you’re running with technology, you’re in fast com- pany, and you might have to discard the clothes by which you’re recognised as an archi- tect.” [23] City Wi-Fi projects experience the second wave of popularity, but in each case they communi- cate different messages and values It might be said that there were two big waves of mu- nicipal Wi-Fi projects — the first in the beginning of 2000s when technology just became trendy and every city wanted to establish its digital leadership. How- ever many of those hopes failed, especially infamous one is Phildelphia Wi-Fi story in US which will be dis- cussed further. It has marked the end of large-scale public initiatives for that moment. However nowadays with global spread of mobile devices, and upcoming age of Internet of things, wearable devices, connected everything and smart cities, city-wide Wi-Fi becomes a popular idea in many places again. This is very much supported by special attention to city-wide Wi-Fi proj- ects by such a huge company as Cisco, for example. The director of business development for Smart+Connected Communities at Cisco is pushing a new business model for municipal Wi-Fi. Smart mo- bile devices are becoming ubiquitous, and user habits have changed. And with faster speeds and better options for blanket coverage, Cisco sees Wi-Fi as a tool not just for public Internet access but also for enabling a broad range of city services and improving management of existing services. In general there are simple reasons for Wi-Fi projects: enriching community life; en- hancing public safety; providing marketing and communications portals; servicing city employees and sensors; and, most prominently, enhancing local economies by attracting more visitors. Wi-Fi can also facilitate the delivery of municipal information and services to residents and visitors. It can provide a private communications channel to connect city employees and sensors. Importantly, it allows cities to close the digital divide for those outside commercial service zones. But to get there public institutions must decide how to fund a service that does not gain primary revenue from end users. Quality of services may differ a lot and cost varies greatly as does the role of different stakeholders. Funding largely follows the ownership models: Complete public funding by municipal or state governments, and hence by the public. Public-private partnership — where institutions can partner with network providers, ISPs and/or advertisers to help fund Wi-Fi. Complete private funding — a city acts as an ‘anchor tenant’ giving a private network operator use of city-owned assets, spaces and rights of way to provide a for-profit service Besides that Wi-Fi networks have different ‘network roles’ which can be played by both public and private actors: network owner, network operator, internet Service Provider. Who plays which role defines main models: “1. The public institution owns and operates the network and a third party supplies Internet connectivity. 2. The public institution owns the network and third parties operate it and supply Internet connectivity 3. Third parties deliver all the primary network roles owning, operating and supplying Internet connectivity.” [24] The more roles an institution plays the more control it will have over its Wi-Fi network, but it will raise the cost of infrastructure for public. here are simple reasons for Wi-Fi projects: enriching community life; en-i l f Wi Fi j i hi i lif hancing public safety; providing marketing and communications portals; servicing city iemployees and sensors; and, most prominently, enhancing local economies by attracting i i W employ more visitors. id t ‘network roles’t ownership models
70 71 How Wi-Fi? The Philadelphia Story Wireless Philadelphia disregarded the recommenda- tions that grew out of the public process and that sup- ported nonprofit ownership of their wireless network. Instead, WP yielded to political pressure when it ac- cepted EarthLink’s bid to own and operate the net- work. In 2005, EarthLink announced that it would build the nation’s first metropolitan-area Wi-Fi network in Phil- adelphia. Over the next two years, the company also said it would build similar networks in New Orleans, Texas, and California. By 2008, however, EarthLink pulled out of the mu- nicipal Wi-Fi business. It offered to transfer the net- work to Philadelphia for free and donate new Wi-Fi equipment, but city officials said network operation expenses would cost taxpayers too much. Company then shut down the Philadelphia project after it failed to find a buyer for the $17 million unfinished network. More than a year after EarthLink ditched plans for a city-wide Wi-Fi network, Philadelphia officials an- nounced that they will repurchase the existing wire- less assets from Network Acquisition Company (NAC) for $2 million and build the system itself. The city plans to create a “multi-purpose public safety and municipal wireless network that will improve government operations as well as providing free In- ternet to citizens in targeted public spaces,” the city said in a statement. Learning from one of the pioneers’ failure — shifting from public to private and back to pub- lic model Philadelphia will invest an additional $17 million in the network between 2011 and 2015 to build out its existing core fiber network and the wireless mesh network acquired from NAC. Without this initial investment, the city said it would cost more than $30 million, plus several more years of construction, to complete the build-out alone. Officials expect to realize about $350,000 in savings by 2015. Philadelphia expects to use the system to enhance its video surveillance and provide information to officers on the street. The city also plans to provide handheld devices to government field workers so they can file reports and access information re- motely. Officials also expect reduced vendor costs for data communications, as well as lower operating budgets as workers are deployed more efficiently. Consultants say the bigger story about Philadel- phia’s decision is the impact on poorer communities. “For the most part, the broadband stimu- lus program has screwed the urban poor. However, city ownership of broadband could be a powerful new element to the national broadband strategy plan that the FCC is writing, and a path to broad- band adoption for low-income citizens.” It’s argued that WP has underperformed because it de-prioritized public input and constituent inter- ests. WP would have been more effective if it had as- sumed ownership of the network. In the absence of substantial public control over the decision-making process, arguments in favor of public ownership of municipal and/or nonprofit networks may be disre- garded in favor of a “free lunch” corporate ownership model. This case was studied a lot and is good to get some recommendation given by experts to municipal Wi-Fi initiatives that want to do better. For city officials: • Involve all stakeholders. • Sustain open participation. • Promote horizontal relation ships among stakeholders. • Be open with information. • Go offline. • Leverage existing assets. • Seriously consider the ben efits of public/nonprofit owner- ship and open access business models. • Treat connectivity and digital inclusion as basic public rights. [25] For community members and lo- cal organizers: • Organize a coalition. • Get to know the key players and decision-makers. • Be the media and report on the process. • Do your own research and disseminate it within your com- munity. • Start a community wireless project. • Remain actively involved in all steps of the process. [25] For city officials: For community members and lo- cal organizers: Wireless Philadelphia disregarded the recommenda tions that grew out of the public process and that su ported nonprofit ownership of their wireless network. The city plans to create a “multi-purpose public safety and municipal wireless network that will improve government operations as well as providing free In- ternet to citizens in targeted public spaces,” th It’s argued that WP has underperformed because it de-prioritized public input and constituent inter ests. WP would have been more effective if it had as- sumed ownership of the network l bl k
72 73 How Wi-Fi? “City’s phone booths were finally going to enter the 21st century, with some being remodeled with Wi-Fi and touchscreens. Seven months later, it turns out that the 25 up- dated booths were a hit. The city is now setting up 250 of the high-tech telephone booths around its five boroughs. The booths, or “SmartScreen” stations, which are made in partnership with Cicso and LG, feature 32-inch multi-touch displays with apps that let you search for local restaurants or information. Just walk up to the screen and tap it. The booths will also broadcast a Wi-Fi signal.” [27] In 2011, Mayor Bloomberg introduced New York City’s first Digital Roadmap. Less than three years later, with 100% of objectives complete, New York City’s Digital Leadership demonstrates the strides the City has made to date, driven by investments in infrastructure, education, open government, online engagement and technology sector support. There are many initiatives on implementing and en- gaging people in digital government and increasing overall digital literacy as well as stimulating entrepre- neurship in technological sector. And one of the in- struments to reach those goals is improving situation with wireless access in the city. “Increasing wireless connectivity in commercial dis- tricts will help strengthen neighborhoods by attract- ing even more businesses, visitors, and residents to the City’s vibrant commercial corridors.” [26] Free public WiFi will be launched in many areas citywide. In order to imple- ment it, the city has developed numerous partnerships models with various companies. The Bloomberg Administration has prioritized connectivity infra- structure so that all New Yorkers can have access to the networks of informa- tion that make our economy run. “Free public wireless networks in neighborhoods across the five boroughs, along with the new broad- band rating program, will advance our goal of equip- ping all New Yorkers with the tools they need to participate in the innovation economy.” [26] New York City Internet access as one of the elements of digi- tal leadership “If New York City is going re- main competitive in the global economy, we must find ways to support the entrepreneurs who are driving technological advances and creating jobs. With these new initiatives, we are making targeted invest- ments to improve our city’s wireless infrastructure and expand Internet access.” [26] In a new step to improve the city’s Internet access, especially in lower income areas, New York City has announced the launch of what will be the nation’s biggest Wi-Fi network, which will blanket 95 blocks of Harlem. “The network will be completely free of charge, have speeds of at least 2mbits.” [28] But besides providing only connectivity NYC was also very good in exploring physical assets helping it. For example, they have launched a campaign of repurposing phone booths into Wi-Fi hotspots. Another very important initiative is the Digital Vans aimed at helping the residents bridge the digital divide. Essentially vans are computer labs on wheels and are available for residents and community members to link to the Internet, search for job op- portunities, touch-up your resume and much more. The vans travel around the city, stopping in areas that have limited or no access to broadband high-speed internet service. WiFi also al- lows people with their own laptop computers to be outside the van and access the Internet for free. It’s a part of program that seeks to expand broadband access and adoption in communi- ties across America. New York City’s first Digital Roadmap “Increasing wireless connectivity in commercial dis- tricts will help strengthen neighborhoods by attract- ing even more businesses, visitors, and residents to the City’s vibrant commercial corridors.” [26 Free public wireless networks will advance our goal of equip- ping all New Yorkers with the tools they need to participate in the innovation economy.” [26 Digital Vans aimed at helping the residents bridge the digital divide
74 75 Bottom-Up in Bryant Park For a moment while the municipalities were lagging with their huge bureaucratic machine communities were taking advantage NYCwireless is an example of bottom-up approach to WI-Fi in the city, founded in 2001 as an all-volunteer organization. It advocates and enables the growth of free, public wireless Internet access in New York City and surrounding ar- eas. Originally started as an informal group of wireless technology enthusiasts, NYCwireless has grown into a multi-faceted organization that helps individu- als and communities all across New York City to use wireless technology to provide free, public Internet access. NYCwireless has built free, public wireless networks in over ten New York City parks and open spaces through partnerships with local parks organiza- tions.It also has built up a reputation as an advocate of the public interest participating in many official wireless initiatives discussions and representing national wireless community worldwide. The most acknowledged project by NYCwireless is Bryant Park Wi-Fi. It’s an example on how initiative that started with bottom-up then was sustained by higher level organisa- tions when they finally turned their attention to it. Park was designed during the Great Depression on the site of a former reservoir. In Social Life of Public Space it is mentioned as one of the dangerous places in NYC. It’s renovation started in 1988 and today the park has cafes, entertainment, a reading li- brary, lawn games — all amenities tuned to contemporary urban life. One of the important renovation elements was installation of blanket Wi-Fi network on all the park territory. After rejecting several approaches requiring wired benches, standalone kiosks, or other stationary concepts, the idea of creating a wireless en- vironment in the park was born. It became the largest urban hotspot in the world at the moment. NYCwireless implemented the idea with the help of Intel wireless equipment. Network got powered in June 2002. It immediately became a showroom demonstrating possibilities of wifi in the city. Visit to Bryant park has even inspired Estonian Veljo Haamer to cover all the nation with free WiFi. Since that time, the network has undergone several upgrades. In 2011, Bryant Park Corpo- ration teamed with Sky-Packets install a brand new, state of the art wireless network. The lat- est upgrade has made the system capable of ac- commodating thousands of users each day, and has enabled the park to be one of the busiest hotspots in the world. From its birth in the 19th century, the idea be- hind the urban park was to provide an escape from the machines and technology that domi- nate the cityscape outside the ornamental fence. The park is for leisure, not work, but over half the users in Bryant Park are working which doesn’t disappoint administration, on the con- trary they support this idea on their website: “Go wireless and turn Bry- ant Park into your new of- fice. Your clients will be impressed with your front lobby.” [30] According to observations 25% of people come here because of Wi-Fi, but that shouldn’t be tricking on the role of infrastructure on its own. Bryant park has all the user experience ele- ments working together for creation of enjoy- able and functional public space. “…despite the fears that mobile communication technology would drive us all into lives of wire- less isolation, the oppo- site seems to be hap- pening. Bryant Park, like myriad parks and plazas in other cities, is return- ing to a role it filled gen- erations ago: a place to share, read, write, gos- sip, and debate…in short, communicate.” …despite the fears that mobile communication technology would drive us all into lives of wire- less isolation, the oppo- site seems to be hap- pening a place to share, read, write, gos sip, and debate…in short, communicate “Go wireless and turn Br ant Park into your new of- fice. Your clients will be impressed with your front lobby. Visit to Bryan park has even inspired Estonian Veljo Haamer to cover all the nation with free WiFi.
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA
ETEREA

Recomendados

e-certificado
e-certificadoe-certificado
e-certificadoSamira Maria Raffoul
 
20150510162414948
2015051016241494820150510162414948
20150510162414948Victoria Proios
 
Shenouda Abdelmalak _CV
Shenouda Abdelmalak _CVShenouda Abdelmalak _CV
Shenouda Abdelmalak _CVShenouda Abdelmalak
 
Aprendizagem, autoria e avaliação
Aprendizagem, autoria e avaliaçãoAprendizagem, autoria e avaliação
Aprendizagem, autoria e avaliaçãoLicurgo Oliveira
 
ShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDF
ShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDFShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDF
ShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDFrajeev kumar tiwari
 
Twist Interview Jan.2013
Twist Interview Jan.2013Twist Interview Jan.2013
Twist Interview Jan.2013Renzo Ricci Bonomini
 
00 002
00 00200 002
00 002siraj ahmed shaikh
 
Perros
PerrosPerros
Perrosidoiabarco
 

Recomendados

e-certificado
e-certificadoe-certificado
e-certificadoSamira Maria Raffoul
 
20150510162414948
2015051016241494820150510162414948
20150510162414948Victoria Proios
 
Shenouda Abdelmalak _CV
Shenouda Abdelmalak _CVShenouda Abdelmalak _CV
Shenouda Abdelmalak _CVShenouda Abdelmalak
 
Aprendizagem, autoria e avaliação
Aprendizagem, autoria e avaliaçãoAprendizagem, autoria e avaliação
Aprendizagem, autoria e avaliaçãoLicurgo Oliveira
 
ShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDF
ShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDFShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDF
ShriVShashankShekharAppt_171114.PDFrajeev kumar tiwari
 
Twist Interview Jan.2013
Twist Interview Jan.2013Twist Interview Jan.2013
Twist Interview Jan.2013Renzo Ricci Bonomini
 
00 002
00 00200 002
00 002siraj ahmed shaikh
 
Perros
PerrosPerros
Perrosidoiabarco
 
Esquema Normas Mexico general
Esquema Normas Mexico generalEsquema Normas Mexico general
Esquema Normas Mexico generalroberto sanchez, RCDD
 
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtomPràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtomRafael Alvarez Alonso
 
Ocsa
OcsaOcsa
OcsaJavier Tacza Ñaupa
 
malang english community
malang english communitymalang english community
malang english communityHery Stevanus
 
296884ba1799
296884ba1799296884ba1799
296884ba1799ssharec
 
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abrilFarmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abrilOcio Melilla Now
 
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10forumsustentar
 
CALIDAD
CALIDADCALIDAD
CALIDADAlexander Perdomo
 
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFTPDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFTPhillip Marr
 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Environmental Impact StatementDraft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Environmental Impact StatementLindsey Tello
 
Flavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici
 
Flavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici
 
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0pathsproject
 
Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)
Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)
Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)MaRk PauLo ALcala
 
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...Matthew Kearney
 
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and ConferenceConference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and ConferenceAEGIS-ACCESSIBLE Projects
 
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2Javier Morales
 
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase ApplicationsTHESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase ApplicationsDaniel Sonntag
 
Tr1546
Tr1546Tr1546
Tr1546MIKIELA Karter Ahmir
 
Handbook 2012 2013
Handbook 2012 2013Handbook 2012 2013
Handbook 2012 2013Diploma in Italian online
 
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026Adam Carroll
 
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011Simon Brooks
 

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtomPràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtomRafael Alvarez Alonso
 
malang english community
malang english communitymalang english community
malang english communityHery Stevanus
 
296884ba1799
296884ba1799296884ba1799
296884ba1799ssharec
 
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abrilFarmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abrilOcio Melilla Now
 
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10forumsustentar
 

Destaque (8)

Esquema Normas Mexico general
Esquema Normas Mexico generalEsquema Normas Mexico general
Esquema Normas Mexico general
 
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtomPràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
Pràctica 1 les propietats elèctriques i l'àtom
 
Ocsa
OcsaOcsa
Ocsa
 
malang english community
malang english communitymalang english community
malang english community
 
296884ba1799
296884ba1799296884ba1799
296884ba1799
 
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abrilFarmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
Farmacias de guardia en Melilla desde el 15 al 21 de abril
 
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
Aew sustentar 2011 ricardo 16 10
 
CALIDAD
CALIDADCALIDAD
CALIDAD
 

Semelhante a ETEREA

PDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFTPDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFTPhillip Marr
 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Environmental Impact StatementDraft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Environmental Impact StatementLindsey Tello
 
Flavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici
 
Flavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici
 
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0pathsproject
 
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...Matthew Kearney
 
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and ConferenceConference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and ConferenceAEGIS-ACCESSIBLE Projects
 
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2Javier Morales
 
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase ApplicationsTHESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase ApplicationsDaniel Sonntag
 
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026Adam Carroll
 
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011Simon Brooks
 
Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...
Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...
Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...Giuseppe Lugano
 
ObjectViewPLManual
ObjectViewPLManualObjectViewPLManual
ObjectViewPLManualAdrian Faur
 
icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014
icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014
icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014kyria kabundi
 
LoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation Plan
LoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation PlanLoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation Plan
LoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation Planlocloud
 
CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014
CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014
CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014Richard Zinno, CBCP
 
CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014
CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014
CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014Cindy Perez
 

Semelhante a ETEREA (20)

PDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFTPDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
PDR Paper FINAL DRAFT
 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Environmental Impact StatementDraft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 
Flavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici Dissertation
 
Flavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici DissertationFlavio Felici Dissertation
Flavio Felici Dissertation
 
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
PATHS: User Requirements Analysis v1.0
 
Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)
Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)
Mark Alcala Resume (Latest)
 
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning across the school curr...
 
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and ConferenceConference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
Conference proceedings 2011 AEGIS International Workshop and Conference
 
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
Msf for-agile-software-development-v5-process-guidance2
 
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase ApplicationsTHESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
THESEUS Usability Guidelines for Usecase Applications
 
Tr1546
Tr1546Tr1546
Tr1546
 
Handbook 2012 2013
Handbook 2012 2013Handbook 2012 2013
Handbook 2012 2013
 
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
AdamCarroll_Semester8Report_X00104026
 
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
Simon Brooks 100042660 - Dissertation - 2010-2011
 
Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...
Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...
Finnish and Italian technology in the global environment of European Communit...
 
ObjectViewPLManual
ObjectViewPLManualObjectViewPLManual
ObjectViewPLManual
 
icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014
icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014
icnd1-lab-project-exercises(PacketTracer)-5-2014
 
LoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation Plan
LoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation PlanLoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation Plan
LoCloud - D6.5 Sustainability and Exploitation Plan
 
CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014
CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014
CSRIC_WG 9_Backup_Power_Reccomendations _11-24-2014
 
CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014
CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014
CSRIC WG9 Backup Power Recommendations 2014
 

ETEREA

  • 1. New Urban Wi-Fi Landscape ETEREA
  • 2. ETEREA New Urban Wi-Fi Landscape A thesis project by Yulia Besplemennova 764434 Academic Tutor Fabio Di Liberto Assistant Marco Lampugnani POLITECNICO DI MILANO FACOLTÁ DEL DESIGN Product Service System Design Master Degree A.Y. 2012/2013
  • 3. Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................6 Intro .........................................................................................................................................................................................9 THEORETICAL RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................... 10 Why Internet..........................................................................................................................................12 Cyberspace ......................................................................................................................................................................14 Social Effects of the Internet ...............................................................................................................................16 Cyberspace vs. Public Space ...............................................................................................................................20 ICT and Cyberspace vs. Spatial Organisation of Cities .....................................................................26 The Internet and Public Realm ......................................................................................................................... 30 Why Wi-Fi? .........................................................................................................................................34 Why Not 3G? .................................................................................................................................................................36 Trends in 3G ....................................................................................................................................................................40 O2 Case ............................................................................................................................................................................42 AT&T Case ......................................................................................................................................................................44 What is Wi-Fi?....................................................................................................................................46 Wi-Fi as Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................................48 Hertzian Space...............................................................................................................................................................52 Hertzian Space and Affordances........................................................................................................................56 Visualizing Wi-Fi..........................................................................................................................................................60 Daily Life Artifacts.......................................................................................................................................................62 How do cities do it?.........................................................................................................................64 Values of City Wi-Fi...................................................................................................................................................66 Why and How Cities Do Wi-Fi.................................................................................. 68 The Philadelphia Story..............................................................................................................................................70 New York City Case....................................................................................................................................................72 Bottom-Up in Bryant Park..................................................................................................................................... 74 Estonia..................................................................................................................................................................................76 Wi-Fi & Internet in Italy.................................................................................................................78 Italian Internet Usage Statistics.........................................................................................................................80 Legal Regulations and Public Initiatives.......................................................................................................84 Wi-Fi Offers.....................................................................................................................................................................86 FIELD RESEARCH .......................................................................................................................................................92 Field Observations Preparation and Examples ....................................................................................................................................94 Tools.......................................................................................................................................................................................96 Research Questions.....................................................................................................................................................98 Choosing Spaces.........................................................................................................................................................100 Piazza Argentina ..........................................................................................................................................102 Via Morgagni ....................................................................................................................................................124 Upcycle.................................................................................................................................................................136 Research Synthesis Understanding Users........................................................................................................................142 Clustering Users .....................................................................................................................148 User Archetypes Description..........................................................................................152 Understanding Offer Focusing on Open Wifi Milano..................................................................................... 158 Digital Islands...........................................................................................................................164 Mapping Global Context...................................................................................................168 User Journey and Breakdown Moments.................................................................170 Openwifi Conclusion.............................................................................................................176 Design Principles.....................................................................................................................178 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Concept Service Approach to Infrastructure.........................................................................................182 Focusing on the Offer ......................................................................................................................184 Offer = traffic rules + bandwidth.............................................................................................186 Understanding demand through user needs.....................................................................190 Platform for Urban Engagement..............................................................................................194 Service Description.......................................................................................................196 For the Users.........................................................................................................................................198 For Partners...........................................................................................................................................200 For Urban Planning............................................................................................................................201 Options......................................................................................................................................................202 Offers and Credits.............................................................................................................................204 Graphic Concept Elements..........................................................................................................206 App/Website..........................................................................................................................................212 Other Touchpoints.............................................................................................................................226 New User Journey.............................................................................................................................228 Returning User Journey.................................................................................................................230 User Experience..................................................................................................................................232 System Map..........................................................................................................................................240 Future Development ...................................................................................................242 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................244 Appendix References.........................................................................................................................246 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................248 List of images..................................................................................................................250 Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................252 THEORETICAL RESEARCH FIELD RESEARCH ................. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
  • 4. 6 7 Eterea – Nuovi paesaggi Wi-Fi urbani Eterea è un nuovo modo di pensare l’offerta di accessi Wi-Fi nella città. Il suo obiettivo è quello di combinare virtualità a fisicità degli spazi in modo da garantire la migliore esperienza possibile all’utente. Poichè Internet sta modificando le nostre vite e i modi in cui facciamo esperienza di ciò che ci circonda, abbiamo un bisogno costante di con- netterci, ovunque ci troviamo. C’è chi dice, addirittura, che essere citta- dini significhi essere online. L’infrastruttura Wi-Fi urbana sta conoscendo una rinnovata crescita grazie alla diffusione dei dispositivi mobili e delle promesse legata alle smart cities. in Italia questa crescita è accompag- nata da innovazioni legislative e, a Milano in particolare, dai preparativi per la futura EXPO-2015. La complessità di questa nuova infrastruttura non va sottostimata. Se nel design si lavora normalmente con le possibilità/capacità (affordances) degli oggetti tangibili, con il Wi-Fi si hanno tre diversi livelli rispetto ai quali queste capacità sono manifeste: quello consueto dello spazio fisico, quello dello spazio elettromagnetico e quello dello spazio virtuale che definisce i nostri comportamenti in esso. Tutte queste dimensioni vanno prese in considerazione se si vuole soddisfare l’utente. Un ulteriore punto di interesse è l’equilibrio tra l’utilità del servizio offerto e la difficoltà nell’utilizzo dello stesso. La soluzione proposta si concen- tra sul lato dell’offerta, ridefinendola per i diversi gruppi di utenti. Con Eterea, i suoi utilizzatori potranno scegliere la corretta connessione, al momento giusto e nel luogo giusto, per poter soddisfare i loro bisogni. La concezione del servizio nasce da molteplici osservazioni sul campo, seguite da attente analisi dell’offerta esistente in città, utili a identificare le reali esigenze degli utenti e le lacune dei servizi già disponibili. I gruppi di utilizzatori principali sono stati circoscritti in relazione alla necessità di costruire un’offerta che incontri le esigenze di chi ne fa maggiore uso. Eterea fa leva anche sulla centralità di Internet come strumento di comu- nicazione contemporanea, e costruisce una piattaforma sulla quale altri partner possono avere accesso e integrare i loro servizi. É in questo modo che Eterea coinvolge molteplici attori, in modo da migliorare l’esperienza della connessione urbana nel suo insieme Eterea – New Urban Wi-Fi Landscape Eterea is a new way of thinking of Wi-Fi offer in the city. It aims at bringing together physical and virtual aspects of spaces for the best user experience. As Internet is changing our lives and the ways we relate to the world we constantly need to connect wherever we are. It is even said now that being urban is being online. City Wi-Fi infrastructures are experiencing new growth with spread of mobile devices and smart cities promise. In Italy it is rising with legal changes and in Milan especially with future EXPO-2015 preparations. Complexity of this new infrastructure should not be underestimated. Normally in design we work with affordances of tangible objects, but with Wi-Fi service there are three levels of affordances: the one of usual physical space, another of electromagnetic field and the affordance of the virtual space affecting our behavior in it. They all should be taken in account to satisfy users. Another important point is the balance between usefulness of service offer and difficulty of access to it. Proposed solution especially focuses on the offer component redefining it for multiple user groups. With Eterea they will be able to choose the right connection at right time and right place to satisfy their specific needs. This concept was developed after many field observations followed by deep research of existing offer in the city which helped to identify real user demands and gaps in exist- ing services. The crucial user groups were defined to focus on delivering proper solution to those who need it the most. Eterea is also emphasizing the central role of Internet as contemporary communication tool and builds a platform for other partners to enter and integrate their services. In this way it is engaging multiple actors to improve the overall connected urban experience. Abstract
  • 5. 8 9 Since the very first moment that I arrived to Italy I was struggling with different problems related to Internet access. First it was the absence of Wi-Fi connection in the hotels and places in the city and after — even at the place I rented. It was so frustrating that at one moment I was almost crying because of not being able to connect to meaningful people. However I was seeing it as a personal issue till my friends coming to Milan haven’t opened my eyes on how many people are really experiencing the same frustration in differ- ent situations. As I was looking for the topic of my thesis dealing with technology and the city I finally accepted the point that basic infrastructure level is unfairly missed by designers and deserves more atten- tion. Theoretical research and field observation proved this idea and the resulting project shows how human- centered approach can contribute to development of seemingly pure technological matter of infrastructure.
  • 6. THEORETICAL RESEARCH Why Internet? Why Wi-FI? What is Wi-FI? How do cities do it? Wi-Fi & Internet in Italy
  • 7. 13 No need to say that the Internet became essential part of our life and it’s importance and penetration is growing faster than of any other communication medium in the human kind history. UN has even declared the inter- net access to be one of the basic human rights. “We all shape and are shaped by what happens there” [1] Of course with such rapid growth besides all other aspects of life it is affecting the life of cities and our behaviour: “Being urban is being online” [2] There was a moment when we could com- plain about people preferring to stay online at home resulting in less life out, but now with global spread of handheld devices situa- tion changes and we bring the Internet to the streets changing our relations to surrounding citizens and environment. Why the Internet?
  • 8. 14 15 Why the Internet? The Internet is a global network of computers linked by ‘wires’ – telecom- munications technologies (cables of copper, coaxial, glass, as well as radio and microwaves). The World Wide Web (WWW - it exists within the Internet) consists of mul- timedia data which are stored as hypermedia documents containing links to other pages of information. Intranets have the same functions as the Internet, but are private, corporate networks linking the offices, production and distribution sites of a company around the world. Other services existing within the Internet include email infrastructure, nu- merous messaging clients and peer-to-peer networks. Perhaps what distinguishes cyberspace, and in particular the Internet, has been the speed of diffusion and growth. However the unveiling of the Web in 1992 was the outcome of nearly thirty years’ of research in digital comput- ing and networking. Moreover, despite its impressive growth statistics, most of the world have yet to experience the Web and many may never gain access, particularly those in the developing world. “The rapid expansion in investment in Information and Communications Technologies and the exponen- tial growth of users of cyberspace is impressive, but their real importance – why they matter – centres on their transformative agency. ICTs and cyberspace are transformative technologies, changing society in a number of ways. They are presently facilitating a process of restructuring, radically altering social, cul- tural, political, institutional and economic life.” [4] “Cyberspace” literally means ‘navigable space’ and comes from the Greek “kyber” (to navigate). This term became popular since William Gibson’s 1984 novel Neuromancer, cyberspace there is a navigable, digital space of net- worked computers accessible from computer consoles; a visual, colourful, electronic, Cartesian datascape known as ‘The Matrix’ where companies and individuals interact with, and trade in, information. Now it’s not one homogeneous space; it is a myriad of rapidly expanding cyberspaces, each providing a different form of digital interaction and communication. In gen- eral, they can be categorised into those existing within the technologies of the Internet, those within virtual re- ality, and conventional telecommunications such as the phone and the fax, although because of a rapid conver- gence of technologies new hybrid spaces are emerging. Importantly this “virtual” space doesn’t exist on it’s own, but merges with our regular physical space. Cyberspace The Internet is just one part of the new bigger space which is restruc- turing our life “Things occur or exist in relation to space and time.” [3] — But which space?! “Cyberspace” l Importantly this “virtual” space doesn’t exist on it’s own, but merges with our regular physical spaceg p y p their real importance – why they matter – centres on their transformative agency. ICTs and cyberspace are transformative technologies, changing society in a number of wayb
  • 9. 16 17 Why the Internet? In order to understand why do we need internet in the city and what it can cause it’s important to look at its social aspects, which is one of the very discussed topics nowadays. One of the most important researches of this might be found in the book ”The Internet in Ev- eryday Life” edited by Barry Wellman and Caro- line Haythornthwaite. It gathers different essays on various aspects of the Internet affecting daily life: comparing the Internet use in different time of day and different countries, talking about civic engagement and social interaction on internet, understanding its impact on other daily activities and involvement into offline communications, new forms of work and experiences in different fields. Mainly it tries to answer the number of questions: • Does using the Internet make people happier or unhappier? • Is the Internet empowering, or is it a tool of social control? • Is the Internet addicting? • Does virtual community erode face to face com- munity? [6] In many of essays authors try to understand whether in reality we’re facing the utopian or dystopian model of the Internet development. Former one is suggesting that online communication makes everything better and more ef- ficient, gives people opportunity to connect to those far away and find new friends and knowledge destroying the physical and space limits. Dystopian on the contrary argues that this enthusiasm about the Internet is false and that this engagement into long-distance communication will affect physically tied communities, cause alienation, social dis- engagement and loss of “real” to “virtual”. However none of those models turn to be com- pletely true in reality. According to researchers people who are more active in online commu- nication turn to be more active offline as well. (Even more than could be observed in research of 2002 nowadays we see real and virtual unit- ing a lot as we passed from the time of chat- rooms and forums with imaginary avatars and nicknames to structured social networks web- sites for people with real names.) “The blossoming of the Internet has eliminated the financial cost of long- distance communication, reduced the time and psychological cost of contacting near and far away peo- ple. Although some community ties function solely online, so-called “virtual communities” , in practice, most people use whatever means are necessary to stay in contact with community members: in-person, by telephone, as well as the Internet. Contrary to dystopian predictions, new communication technol- ogies do not disconnect people from communities. Computer-mediated communication reinforces exist- ing communities, establishing contact and encourag- ing support where none may have existed before.”[7] Social Effects of the Internet “If you do not care about net- works, the networks will care about you, anyway. For as long as you want to live in society, at this time and in this place, you will have to deal with the network society. Because we live in the Internet Galaxy.” [5] Despite many concerns active users of the In- ternet are also more active in the offline com- munication If you do not care about net works, the networks will care about you, anyway people who are more active in online commu- nication turn to be more active offline as well. ogies do not disconnect people from communities Computer-mediated communication reinforces exist- ng communities, establishing contact and encourag- ing support where none may have existed before. new communication technol-
  • 10. 18 Why the Internet? 19 Why the Internet? Interesting aspect of these debates is in evaluating the social capital changes with use of Internet and what Information revolution has done to communi- ties in details. In this fields commonly expressed fears included: • The weakening of private community: social con- tact with kin, friends, workmates, and neighbors. • The decline of public community: gatherings in pub- lic places, involvement in voluntary organizations, civic concerns, and commitment to community. • The disengagement from community: positive atti- tudes towards community life and willingness to contribute to the well-being of the community [8] To understand that researchers have studied different forms of social capital: 1. Network capital: the frequency of social contact with friends, relatives, and workmates. This is the private side of community. 2. Civic engagement: participation in voluntary organizations and political activities affords opportunities for people to bond, create joint accomplishments, and collectively articulate their de- mands. Such civic engagement is the public side of community. 3. Sense of community: social capital consists of more than interpersonal interaction and civic engagement. When people have a strong attitude toward community – a motivated and responsible sense of belonging – they should mobilize their social capital more willingly and effectively. This is the attitudinal side of community. The evidences for analysis came from a web survey of a large web survey of North American visitors to the National Geographic Society website. And in the end research’s results suggest that the Internet is increasing social capital, civic engagement, and developing a sense of belonging to online com- munity. People not only have more relationships than in pre-Internet times, they are in more frequent contact with their relationships, and the strengthen- ing of the bonds through more frequent contact means that ties can be more readily mobilized for aid. “Research shows no single Internet effect. At a time of spatially dispersed community, the Internet facili- tates social contact that supplements face-to-face and telephone contact. At a time of declining civic engagement, the Internet provides tools for those already involved to increase their engagement. At a time of partial identity with multiple personal com- munities, the Internet provides another means for feeling connected with friends and kin. Rather than weakening other forms of community, those who are more active offline are more active online – and vice versa. In this way, people are incorporating the Internet into their everyday lives even as the Inter- net is quietly fostering the changing composition of social capital.” [8] It should be considered however that this research was performed in the years before spread of Facebook and other social networking services becoming es- sential in our lives, which apparently should only emphasize all the effects discussed above. 1. Network capital: the Civic engagement: p 3. Sense of community: s: no single Internet effect Rather than weakening other forms of community, those who are more active offline are more active online – and vice versa. In this way, people are incorporating thee versa. I Internet into their everyday lives even as the Inter- net is quietly fostering the changing composition of social capital
  • 11. 20 21 Why the Internet? Public spaces for many centuries were the main gathering points for communi- ties, but new communication models are changing their relevance. For exam- ple, now we don’t need to gather in the city squares to discuss problems with fellow citizens, online forums do this jobs of physical spots. And new models of people’s connections ask for different space organisation. “Designers need to know how the world actually functions rather than trying to force their interac- tions into misspecified templates. People live and work in networks, not in groups. Realizing this can aid the design and use of the right computer tools for our times.” [9] “In our century information and communication tech- nologies are changing space-time relations, redefin- ing our views on materiality and spatiality and the way people connect to the places. Cyberspace exist- ing due to them extends our social interaction pro- viding new media.” [4] Rapid development of telecommunications in the past century has changed our lifestyles, the way we connect, interact and behave and apparently — how do we use spaces and relate with those around. Public spaces are different for different publics. Barry Wellman puts it short and clear in “Little Boxes, Glo- calization, and Networked Individualism” He tries to warn those involved in “digital cities” issues not to mistaken the old ways of thinking of communities and accept new reality instead. According to him we’ve passed from Little boxes organization, through Glocal- ization to Networked Individualism. Each of them deserves a bit of explana- tion. “The “little boxes” metaphor (from Malvena Reynolds’ 1963 song) connotes people socially and cognitively encapsulated by homogeneous, broadly-embracing groups.”[9] Little boxes is the model of traditional pre-telecommunication society where people were mostly communicating with fellow members of the few groups to which they belong: at home, in the neighborhood, at work, or in voluntary or- ganizations. These groups often have boundaries for inclusion and structured, hierarchical, organization: supervisors and employees, parents and children, pastors and churchgoers, organizational executives and members. In such a society, each interaction is in its place: one group at a time. What’s important is that this groups of interacting people require specifically designed spaces. And they find them in churches, town squares, cafes, bars, clubs and many other traditional public spaces. “Glocalization” is a neologism meaning the combina- tion of intense local and extensive global interac- tion.”[9] Transition from little boxes to glocalisation was driven by revolutionary de- velopments in both transportation and communication. It was a move away from a solidary group in a single locale to contact between people in different places and multiple social networks. Households and worksites became impor- tant centers for networking; neighborhoods became less important. Also social changes like liberalized divorce law added much to this transition. Glocalization means the establishment of network of places. People on this stage can interact both within and without local neighborhood. They can find friends by interest in other places and keep connected by means of telecom- Cyberspace vs. Public Space Telecommunications moved us from local com- munities to distant networks, requiring new ap- proach to spatial design “Designers need to know how the world actually functions rather than trying to force their interac tions into misspecified template “In our century information and communication tech nologies are changing space-time relations, redefin- ing our views on materiality and spatiality and the way people connect to the places. C this groups of interacting people require specifically d h i h hdesigned spaces. Andd W “The “little boxes” m “Glocalization” i” Households and worksites became impor- tant centers for networking; neighborhoods became less important. A
  • 12. Local community “Little boxes” Glocalization Person-to-person networks Just as global society Simpsons family is very much affected by the ICT changing its social communication and life organisation Simpsons’ case perfectly demonstrates also how in reality (even cartoon one) different modes of communication coexist in con- temporary society even though main vector is moving and more people become networked individuals abandoning local commu- nities participation. Just like in old times Homer likes to meet his friends at Moe’s while Marge is actively partici- pating in church community. However real contemporary family’s anchor is their living room connected to global world by TV-news and telephone. Unlike her parents Lisa finds like-minded friends in different places using the Internet. (She also likes playing poker there.) Despite his love to TV Homer tries all new de- vices and they’re changing his relations to oth- ers. (Though it’s still unclear whether some- thing will make him spend more time outdoors)
  • 13. 24 Why the Internet? 25 Why the Internet? munication and travelling. However this telecommunication is still a landline phone and a desktop computer connected to the Internet with a cable. There- fore it is more of the network of places than of people. If the landline phone rings in the apartment or restaurant it can be addressing anyone who’s in there. This brings another specificity — connection being feature of a place pushes people to stay in that place if communication with people far away is impor- tant for them. And it tends to be more and more important as people con- nected by shared interest tend to have better time together rather than those who’re just physically close. For the spaces: “Community interactions have moved inside the pri- vate home — where most entertaining, phone-calling and emailing take place — and away from chatting with patrons in public spaces such as bars, street corners and coffee shops… People rarely know their neighbours and don’t establish any close connections with them if communicate at all… By contrast to tra- ditional meetings in village squares or pubs, friends and relatives get together in private as small sets of singles or couples, but rarely as communal groups.” [9] Then mobile phones and ubiquitous internet connection change this picture again: “Wireless world affords networked individualism, with each person switching between ties and net- works” [9] Now people are connected as individuals not rooted to the households or work units, the technology affords shifting of work and community ties from linking people-in-places to linking people wherever they are. With portable communication physical context becomes less important. Physi- cal surroundings must be described, rather than assumed because people have uncertain knowledge about the immediate whereabouts and social contexts of their mobile network members. Today “private cyberspace” can follow person everywhere competing with real public spaces in people’s attention field. However transition from place-to-place connection to person-to-person is not the end of it. Online world allows people to continue with role-to-role commu- nication. When the physical presence of real person is not necessary we start to connect with people on basis of some narrow social roles. Professional cor- respondence is one of the most obvious examples of it, but Internet provides much more of those when talking about forums and different communities of people united by the shared specific interest. All this stages of development have their manifestations in people behaviour in the city and spaces that are required for it. It is especially interesting as nowadays we still observe the mixture of all the mentioned social organiza- tion types which causes interesting design challenges in terms of space and services. connection being feature of a place pushes people to stay in that place if communication with people far away is impor- d btant for them. “Community interactions have moved inside the pri- vate home — … People rarely know their neighbours and don’t establish any close connections with them if communicate at all… friends and relatives get together in private as small sets ofp singles or couples, but rarely as communal groups “Wireless world affords networked individualism Today “private cyberspace” can follow person everywhere competing with real public spaces in people’s attention field
  • 14. 26 27 Why the Internet? In modern society social relations are formed by spatial concerns. People and their sites of production and consumption are organised in relation to a spatial logic. It can be said that cities developed in order to overcome time with space and were located close to raw materials sources or routes of trade. Sites of pro- duction were located in relation to materials and markets to minimise costs and maximise sales; and sites of consumption located in places that would maximise sales. Some analysts now suppose that ICTs make this modern logic of space obsolete and challenge space–time relations as conceived in modern- ist thought. It is argued that ICT is revolutionising how business is conducted, transform- ing patterns of work leading to urban-regional restructuring. The use of In- tranets, is facilitating globalising processes such as office automation, telework and the adoption of back-offices operations leading to a radical reorganization of corporations and significant changes in employment patterns. Urban areas are restructuring to gain competitive advantage through cyberspace, and some sections of industry are decentralising to the suburbs and even other areas/ countries to take advantage of cheaper rents and skilled workforces, while remaining in constant and instantaneous contact via ICTs. However things are not that simple and most of futuristic scenarios with cities not being anymore needed and all work and meetings performed on distance from rural areas have never come true. The “information age” or the “network society” turn to be not that immaterial or anti-geographic. “It encompasses a complex range of restructuring processes that become highly materialized in real places, as efforts are made to equip buildings, insti- tutions, and urban spaces with the kinds of pre- mium electronic and physical connectivity neces- sary to allow them to assert nodal status within the dynamic flows, and changing divisions of labour, of digital capitalism.”[10] Even in the very matter of delivering the Internet the greatest challenge of multiplying telecommunications firms in large cities is what is the problem of the “last mile”: getting satellite installations, optic fibres, and whole net- works through the expensive “local loop.” The challenge is to thread networks under the roads and pavements of the urban fabric. Up to 80% of the costs of a network are associated with the business of getting it into the ground in highly congested, and contested, urban areas. This hard material basis for the “digital revolution” is neglected but crucial. Focusing on it allows to reveal the complex social and technological practices that surround and support the explosion of digitally mediated economic and cultural flows. Physical reality is still crucial for us as human beings and will continue to be an issue for a long time yet. “One must not overlook the fact that people still live in a material world and require food, shelter and human contact. In cases where services can be decentralised, they still have to locate in areas of suitable skilled labour and conventional transport links. In other words, although ICTs work to destroy space–time relations, to render social relations ‘spaceless’, other spatial practices, forms and forces resist and work against this attrition. Consequently, we are witnessing simultaneous pressures of spatial fragmentation (decentralisation) and unity (centrali- ICT and Cyberspace vs. Spatial Organisation of Cities Despite obviously changing spatial relations we still haven’t got to “death of the distance” and cyberspace can even help maintaining so- cial authenticity In modern society social relations are formed by spatial concerns. Peop p es. Some analysts now suppose that ICTs make this modern logic of space obsolete and challenge space–time relations as conceived in modern- ist thought. t ICT is revolutionising how business is conducted, transform- ing patterns of work leading to urban-regional restructuring i f g Urban areas dare restructuring to gain competitive advantage through cyberspac The “information age” or the “network society” turn to be not that immaterial hior anti-geographic. However t Up to 80% of the costs of a network are associated with the business of getting it into the ground in highly congested, and contested, urban areas. Thi on” is neglected but crucial F people still live in a material world and require food,ve in a material world and require food, shelter and human contact. Ico although ICTs work to destroy space–time relationn other spatial practices, forms and forces resist and work against this attrition we are witnessing simultaneous pressures of spatia fragmentation (decentralisation) and unity (
  • 15. 28 Why the Internet? 29 Why the Internet? sation)… Indeed, a complex interplay between local and global forces exists as some places use and develop their localism, their uniqueness, to try and attract visitors and business.”[4] Besides the pure pragmatism of production and consumption processes, also emotional bonds to places and their social aspects are important. In “Place and Placelessness”, Relph explores the relationship between people and places. He posits that there is a powerful relationship between the two, to the extent that “people are their place and a place is its people”. He argues that people develop and need attachments to places which of course can vary a lot though. As an opposite to attachment “Placelessness” is “a weakening of the identity of places to the point where they not only look alike, but feel alike and of- fer the same bland possibilities for experience”. Now as telecommunications threaten local identities and spread homogenous experience we have to be aware of this fact and try to design connection of cyber and real spaces in a way which would empower the latter. “Cyberspace can provide an antidote to placelessness by providing alternative and more attractive authen- tic places. If we take the definition of place by Jess and Massey – places are characterized by providing a setting for everyday activities, by having linkages to other locations, and providing a ‘sense of place’ – then there can be little doubt that new places, and new spatialities, are being formed online. Moreover, these places seem to be authentic as they embody a sense of belonging.” [4] On the Internet individualistic, like-minded people join forces to form public- based communities; cyberspace offers the opportunity to reclaim public space and recreate online the essence and nature of authentic places which are dis- appearing in geographic space. “people are their place and a place is its people” places are characterized by providing a setting for everyday activities, by having linkages to other locations, and providing a ‘sense of place’ – then there can be little doubt that new places, and new spatialities, are being formed online
  • 16. 30 31 Why the Internet? The Internet and Public Realm The public realm includes urban public spaces, such as a city’s streets, parks, and plazas, and is part of a much larger public sphere. What is specific about it is hosting planned en- counters with existing acquaintances, as well as serendipitous encounters with strangers. The public realm is different from all public spaces because it includes only those “locals” or social settings that minimize the segregation of people based on “life-styles”: values, opinions, gender, race, ethnicity, stage in the life course, and other forms of diversity. “The proportion of copresent others in the public realm is dramatically in favor of the unfamiliar and leans toward a diversity of interests, behaviors, and beliefs rather than to the familiar or the homophi- lous. It stands in contrast to the private realm, those social settings that are principally the domain of intimate, homophilous social ties — generally kinship ties, with whom people share many to most things in common.” [11] The public realm is also differentiated from those spaces that may be pub- lic or “third places”, but are nonetheless “home territory”, in that people are surrounded by others with whom they share much in common, such as in a neighborhood, small town, or workplace. Belonging to the public realm can be defined by existence of social diversity and a low density of acquaintanceship. The public realm provides exposure across ethnic, social, behavioral, and ideo- logical boundaries which gives access to messages ideologically divergent or absent from the intimate networks of the private realm. “The public realm can provide a provocative, poten- tially disruptive, and contested setting that, although incomplete, is an important component of pub- lic deliberation in an increasingly shrinking public sphere.” [11] “The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century — the world’s town square, classroom, market- place, coffeehouse and night club.” [1] Serendipitous meetings with diverse others are essential for social life of cities, but they don’t usually occur online The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century The public realm can provide a provocative, poten- tially disruptive, and contested setting that, although incomplete, is an important component of pub- lic deliberation in an increasingly shrinking public sphere.”
  • 17. 32 Why the Internet? 33 Why the Internet? Many analysts consider that the public sphere, created in the period of En- lightenment, is rapidly disappearing to be replaced by spaces governed by pri- vate concerns. “For theorist Jurgen Habermas, when the public sphere emerged in the early eighteenth century, it did so in the context of the cafe, the learned society, and the salon. Together with the rituals of coffee drink- ing, the cafe increasingly provided both forum and fuel for critical debate about the latest pamphlets, newsletters, and broadsides. But the public sphere was never so much a physical place as a discursive site in which a literate public could conduct rational and critical debate.”[11] Of course the Internet nowadays takes many discursive functions of public sphere in general, but it’s difficult for it to simulate proper public realm. An- other interesting aspect is Internet use in the public realm which has remained relatively unexplored. This type of use carries with it significant implications for urban planning, the structure of community, and the nature of democracy. “The upsurge in Internet access in public spaces may reshape the public realm. Because of its location, it may revitalize, repopulate, and improve the safety of public spaces. Because of the electronic connec- tivity it offers, it may reduce social inequalities and increase the use of public spaces. As a result of the diversity of those who are copresent, it may increase social cohesion, tolerance, and exposure to diverse messages. And, given that participation in both phys- ical and virtual spaces can contribute to public dis- course, it may develop political action and stimulate democracy. Or, it may not. Wireless Internet use may push out existing public life; previously private activi- ties may shrink the public realm; and the availability of this technology on the street, in parks, and in pla- zas may do nothing to increase exposure to diverse ideas and diverse others, but, instead, contribute to existing trends toward privatism that are augment- ing the structure and composition of people’s social networks.” [11] There are a lot of hopes regarding how public internet connection in outdoor spaces can bring people back to great diversity exposure and local community participation, however justification of these possibilities require a lot of socio- ethnographic field work. the public sphere was never so much a physical place as a discursive site in which a literate public could conduct rational and critical debate. [ the Internet nowadays takes many discursive functions of public sphere in general, but it’s difficult for it to simulate proper public realm. Al f i i
  • 18. It might seem that Wi-Fi is losing its popular- ity with the spread of mobile Internet technol- ogy and people paying to have connectivity from their mobile devices wherever they go. It’s true that Wi-Fi cannot compete with 3G in roaming freedom and wide coverage, how- ever it has its own advantages. The main one — it operates in free spectrum and therefor will remain cheaper than 3G. At the moment when our communication culture gets more and more video influences and traffic demand grows outrageously, this quality of Wi-Fi will guarantee its further popularity. Mobile oper- ators themselves seek to offload their net- works and turn to Wi-Fi for it. Why Wi-Fi?
  • 19. 36 37 Why Wi-Fi? Why Not 3G? Development and diffusion of Wi-Fi networks has par- alleled that of Mobile Broadband services — Internet subscriptions for mobile phones, enabled by the third generation of mobile telecommunications technology (“3G”). Wi-Fi technologies afford high throughput and fast speeds in a localised area (usually a radius of 100 meters around a wireless access point), while 3G networks enable roaming Internet access at the ex- pense of speed. But unlike Wi-Fi, mobile broadband providers operate in licensed spectra that carry large costs for providers and end users. This limits the af- fordable data capacity of 4G subscriptions. On the other side of cost problem is the development of media services that people like to use especially video streaming. Growth of video culture is ob- vious in updates of services like Instagram allowing capturing clips as well as photos now and such trends as traditional paper magazines (like i-D and Dazed) rolling its video editorials. Even as 3G and 4G networks expand and gain speed, Wi-Fi is proving even more popular, especially with carriers looking to offload their cellular traffic, the networks are already congested in many parts of Europe because of a lack of allocated spectrum so telecom operators already search ways to offload the network in the heavy usage hours starting to offer Wi-Fi services to their sub- scribers. “Mobile data offloading is the use of complementary network technologies for delivering data originally targeted for cellular networks. The main comple- mentary network technologies used for mobile data offloading are Wi-Fi, femtocell and Integrated Mobile Broadcast. It is predicted that mobile data offload- ing will become a new industry segment due to the surge of mobile data traffic.” [12] European Comission has conducted the “Study on the importance of Wi-Fi & the socioeconomic benefits of using small cell infrastructures” and has pub- lished report suggesting promoting further offload and various Wi-Fi initiatives to deliver the best Internet access to people. Wi-Fi is more sustainable option which also has more connection to location and should work together with 3G Current fastest Wi-Fi devel- oped is claimed to reach 7 Gbps speed, while commercially available one is passing 1 Gbps. Meanwhile the last developed broadband standart LTE-Ad- vanced is just reaching 1 Gbps, and today users can get around 100 Mbps. Projected macrocell capacity and traffic demand: fastest Wi-Fi devel- oped is claimed to reach 7 Gbps speed, commercially available one is passing 1 Gbps. he last developed roadband standart LTE-Ad- vanced is just reaching 1 Gbps, and today users can get around 100 Mbps. while 3G pense of speed . Wi-Fi technologies afford high throughput and fast speeds in a localised areaf d i networks enable roaming Internet access at the e But unlike Wi-Fi, mobile broadband providers operate in licensed spectra that carry large costs for providers and end users h carriers looking to offload their cellular traffic, Mobile data offloading is the use of complementary network technologies for delivering data originally targeted for cellular networks. Study on the importance of Wi-Fi & the socioeconomic benefits of using small cell infrastructures” a
  • 20. 38 Why Wi-Fi? 39 Why Wi-Fi? “In 2012 71% of all wireless data traffic that was delivered to smartphones and tablets in the EU was delivered via Wi-Fi. It is estimated that this figure will grow to 78% by 2016. It is predicted that in 2016 up to €200 billion in network cost reductions can be expected from data traffic offloading chiefly to Wi- Fi.“ [13] The surprising results show how the lower cost to consumers of using Wi-Fi hotspots is changing behaviour, and the study recommends extra spectrum be made available across the EU to support this rising demand. “• Wi-Fi and LTE small cells are complementary to one another rather than substitutes. • Off-load solutions potentially permit much greater spectrum re-use over a given geographic area. • New Wi-Fi equipment will enable higher bit rates by deploying wider channels (80 MHz or 160 MHz). • Automatic authentication processes for accessing Wi-Fi networks will largely overcome the historic complexity to connect manually to Wi-Fi, namely of the connection and authentication process. • Solutions that allow individuals to share their bandwidth via Wi-Fi and a number of Wi-Fi roam- ing aggregators are making public Wi-Fi access more convenient and affordable for many users.” [13] So nowadays there is no anymore question of which Internet connection is better in the city, it’s understood that different kinds of it are needed and they should work together to use their advantages for the best overall user experience. However to be really used by citizens public Wi-Fi service should offer some experience really different from that of 3G internet: easier access, higher band- width and less traffic restrictions, better usability, etc. Mobile internet will always maintain advantage of roaming, but it can be seen as a special feature of Wi-Fi — being connected to the local scale and therefore able to change with specific places in the city. Wi-Fi is embedded in space making, connecting tan- gible physical layer with intangible online world and this possibilities should be further explored to design better connected city experience. Wi-Fi and LTE small cells are complementary toc one another rather than substitutes.
  • 21. 40 41 Trends in 3G Some elements of 3G world can be interesting ap- plied to Wi-Fi as well Sharing Wi-Fi: The Karma hotspot is a tiny, pocket-sized, pay-as-you-go mobile hotspot that offers fast mobile data when you need it, either at home when the cable goes out or when you’re on the go and can’t find a Wi-Fi network to use. It comes pre-loaded with 1GB of data on account, and as it’s used, it can be recharged with more data which never expires, and there is no monthly fees or charges to deal with. 1GB of data is $14. Peculiar moment is that Karma prompts sharing data keeping access open to others, so when someone else accesses the hotspot, they get 100MB for free and this fact adds also 100MB to user’s account. It’s a bonus for being social and encouraging friends to join Karma’s Wi-Fi network. Paid traffic: Recently AT&T has announced the new offer “Sponsored Data” — ser- vice that enables companies to sponsor the data usage for specific content on behalf of AT&T wireless customers. With AT&T Sponsored Data customers can browse content from sponsors without impacting their monthly data plan allowance. For example, a customer may access an application for healthcare from their insurer. Within the application, there is an educational video. The customer sees the AT&T Sponsored Data name, identifying that the video is sponsored. When the customer clicks the icon to play the video, the data usage incurred while watching the video is not applied to the customer’s monthly data allow- ance. Amazon was using this model on its own devices for a long time already: Kindle e-readers with 3G has unlimited mobile broadband. Device owners can use the connection for downloading e-books when out of Wi-Fi range and can also use the web through an experimental browser. Amount of traffic in browser is limited, but owners can download as many books as they want from Amazon, books are delivered via “Whispernet”, typically in less than 60 seconds. “Sponsored Data” vice that enables companies to sponsor the data usage for specific content on behalf of AT&T wireless customers. Kindle e-readers with 3G has unlimited mobile broadband. Karma prompts sharing data keeping access opena to others, so when someone else accesses the hotspot, they get 100MB for free and this fact adds also 100MB to user’s account
  • 22. 42 43 Why Wi-Fi? Telefonica Europe is a European broadband and telecommunications company that trades as O2. It uses Wi-Fi network to start traffic offloading project for the future. First it launched 100 hotspots for London Olympics, but after went on with the project. O2’s first hotzone covered high-traffic areas in London’s high-tourism West End. O2’s project has two notable distinctions: 1) Service is free to all comers, whether or not they are existing O2 subscribers and 2) The Wi-Fi network is serving as a blueprint for O2’s future small cells rollout. “Once you’ve signed-up, that’s it. No passwords or usernames to connect. Every time you come into an O2 wifi area, we’ll connect you automatically. And it won’t eat into your mobile’s data allowance. Just quick Wifi, where you need it.” [14] The offer is up to 10GB a month, user can keep track of how much they’ve used on the online account page showing how much was used in the last 30 days. It exists in thousands of Wi-Fi-enabled locations including McDonald’s, Costa, Pizza Hut, Debenhams, TONI&GUY, Strada, Subway, All-Bar-One and many more — even on the streets and other public places. All you need to do is register using the free O2 Wifi app. Once you’re on, you’re on. No username. No password. You’ll connect automatically whenever you’re in a Hotspot. Easy. You can check your emails, upload photos on Face- book or watch those funny cat videos on YouTube. It’s up to ten times faster than 3G. [14] O2 O2 app functionality includes: • Register for O2 Wi-Fi, wherever in the UK (not just in a Hot- spot). • Find and get directions to a Hotspot, even when offline. • Manage settings (and any other Wi-Fi devices) on O2 Wi-Fi. • Get answers to questions. Users have to be over 18 to register and accept terms and conditions. Besides Wi-Fi O2 experiments with different additional services improving customers’ experience. Exclusive for O2 customers, Priority brings you the best offers from high street brands and local inde- pendent stores. With prize draws, experiences, exclu- sive videos, gigs and sporting events, Priority makes every day a little more special. [14] User launches the app and phone will instantly load a selection of the day’s best offers. The closest to user are at the top of the list. User can get your voucher immediately or save it for later to plan ahead. To redeem voucher has to be presented in any store nationwide. Offers are avail- able to all O2 mobile customers. O2 uses Wi-Fi network to offload traffic in the future The offer is up to 10GB a month, user can keep track of how much they’ve used on the online account page showing how much was used in the last 30 days. O2 app functionality includes: additional services improving customers’ experience. Priority brings you the best offers from high street brands and local inde-s pendent stores.
  • 23. 44 45 Why Wi-Fi? AT&T is another example of telecommunication operator providing Wi-Fi con- nection as a part of its service. It creates numerous Wi-Fi spots in public zones both on its own and in partnership programs as in case of NYC. It also provides additional supportive environment, for example charging stations powered by solar energy. As a partnership with city government it provides free Wi-Fi to all new yorkers not depending on their mobile operator. Many places are in the parks as well as indoor locations (than 32,000 such as hospitality locations, retail stores, sta- dium restaurants and more). Specially designed app has various features: remembers to connect to user’s AT&T favorite spot, finds Wi-Fi on the go, automatically turns Wi-Fi on when close to the hotspot to save battery, etc. Many of popular smartphones can switch seamlessly from the 3G network to Wi-Fi with auto-authentication performed by the app as well. App helps to increase Wi-Fi connections while minimizing cellular data consumption. AT&T Smart Wi-Fi helps to find, auto-connect and remember available hotspots in places user connects frequent. It also maxi- mizes the battery life and displays Wi-Fi and cellular data usage in real-time so user can keep tabs on her data plan usage. Running quietly in the background, AT&T Smart Wi-Fi uses hotspot auto-detection to make it easy to discover, select and build a list of available hotspots. It also helps maximize battery life by staying in sleep mode until it recognizes user’s near a previously-detected hotspot. Moreover, AT&T Smart Wi-Fi creates a hotspot opportunity list by logging and mapping hotspots already seen -- but not connected to previously. By doing this, user can readily access relevant hotspots the next time she’s in that area and want to connect. A&T provides Wi-Fi both for its own custom- ers and other users working in partnership with many city councils for common good As a partnership with city government it provides free Wi-Fi to all new yorkers not depending on their mobile operator. Specially designed app
  • 24. Wi-Fi is a new kind of urban infrastructure. It is different from previous kind by its intan- gible nature and flexibility of change. It brings together affordances of many levels: of tan- gible environment on which user experiences it first, of electromagnetic field which we cannot sense, but it defines the spread of sig- nal and therefore experience as well, and in the end it has universal Internet connection affordance suggesting what people can do in cyberspace. These level should be understand deeper to know what can be redesigned. What is Wi-Fi?
  • 25. 48 49 What is Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi as Infrastructure “Cities are layerings of infra- structures. We read infrastruc- ture broadly here: not just pow- er, water, and sewage, but other infrastructures that define elements of the experience of space.” [15] Wi-Fi relies on both material an intangible layers of infrastructure which causes new relation of it to the cities Wi-Fi is a technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or con- nect to the internet wirelessly using microwaves in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands. The Wi-Fi Alliance defines Wi-Fi as any “wireless local area network (WLAN) products that are based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE) 802.11 standards”. However, modern WLANs are based on them. Wi-Fi came to prominence at the turn of the mil- lennium when 802.11 standards were refined and personal computer manufacturers began to market Wi-Fi equipped computers. With the distribution of affordable wireless routers, Wi-Fi quickly became ubiquitous. Free Wi-Fi ‘hotspots’ can now be ex- pected where there are ‘intersecting flows’ of com- merce and people. As common Wi-Fi router allows delivering Internet connection to a number of users on relative distance it became the main mean of providing connectivity in the cities both by private and public actors, so the whole Wi-Fi infrastruc- ture emerged and has to be explored in context of the city. Infrastructure is a way of rearranging resources, wirelss infrastructure is based on physical devices, but then flows away from tangible realm into the electro- magnetic fields landscape which has different laws than our visible objects. However all the elements of it are important to the resulting user experience. “Far from the mythical distributed ideal that ideolo- gists of technology claim it to be, the network has its own physicality, its own material presence. Net- works rely on relatively few high-bandwidth trans- continental and transoceanic fiber-optic lines, on even fewer Tier-1 carriers that sell space on these lines, and on still fewer mobile-phone operators and last-mile connection (DSL or cable broadband ser- vice) providers that allow the end user to access bandwidth. Interchanges between such networks occur at only a few major peering points, usually one or two major carrier hotels per metropolitan area. This highly centralized system produced by historical factors helps to further concentrate the global city. Not only is this system vulnerable to natural or man- made disasters but it’s all too easy to take advantage of by individuals or governments.” [10] “Cities are layerings of infra- structures that define elements of the experience of space. “Far from the mythical distributed ideal that ideoloythical distributed ideal that id gists of technology claim it to be, the network ha its own physicality, its own material presence
  • 26. 50 What is Wi-Fi? 51 What is Wi-Fi? “We need to think archi- tecturally about the mo- bile and wireless tech- nologies that we develop and deploy, the human side of infrastructures.” [15] But besides the tangible elements of this new infrastructure that are more or less understandable to us, new wireless layer is also physical and real, the mo- ment that many tend to forget about. It leads us to the virtual world, but is not virtual itself yet: “The fascinating thing about the move from the sys- tems we built on the wired internet to those that we experience through wireless and mobile networks is that we are creating not a virtual but a thoroughly physical infrastructure, and we need to think about it as one that is interwoven with the existing physical structure of space.” [16] There is always a complex interaction between space, infra- structure, culture, and experience. The spaces into which new technologies are deployed are not stable, not uniform, and not given. Technology can destabilize and transform these interac- tions, but will only ever be one part of the mix. Infrastructure is “relational and ecological — means different things to different groups and is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment, inseparable from them. It also is frequently mundane to the point of boredom, involving things such as plugs, standards, and bureaucratic forms” [17] There are different properties of infrastructure: embeddedness, transpar- ency, reach or scope, learned as part of membership, linked to conventions of practice, embodies standards, built on an installed base, becomes visible upon breakdown, and fixed in modular increments. A related concept underscoring several of these properties is that of the invisibility of infrastructure, in that it becomes taken for granted and thereby disappears into the background unless it breaks down. we are creating not a virtual but a thoroughly physical infrastructure, and we need to think about it as one that is interwove with the existing physical structure o space. [ Infrastructure is “relational and ecological — means different things to different groups and is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment,
  • 27. 52 Hertzian space “The rapid expansion of knowledge and technical de- velopment has swept us into a world beyond our grasp; the face of nature is alien once again. Like the forest and the mountains of medieval times, our new environment harbours strange menacing beasts, invisible viruses, at- oms, mesons, protons, cosmic rays, supersonic waves.” [18] Physical properties of wireless signal propagation — the range, signal strength and possible obstacles determine their presence in the environment. The ‘space’ formed by these waves is sometimes referred to as hertzian, be- cause it consists of waves oscillating on frequencies expressed in Hz (SI unit of frequency named after Heinrich Rudolf Hertz). This term is also used to describe “a holistic view of the electronic device and its cultural interac- tions”[19]. The problem with physicality of the hertzian space is that it is extremely difficult to (accurately) perceive and repre- sent, leaving us with a vague idea about how it actually ‘looks’ like. This space is talked about a lot under dif- ferent names William Mitchell called it an ‘electromagnetic terrain’ — both intricate and invisible, and only hinted at by the presence of antennas, the common fact is that interest to this space only grows and help understanding how to deal with its ef- fects on our lives. On basic physical level any wireless connection is made of electromagnetic waves. They set specific constraints which should be understood for the best user experience ‘space’ formed by these waves is sometimes referred to as hertzian, be- cause it consists of waves oscillating on frequencies expressed in Hz that interest to this space only grows and help understanding how to deal with its ef- fects on our lives.
  • 28. 54 What is Wi-Fi? “Whereas cyberspace is a metaphor that spa- tializes what happens in computers distributed around the world, ra- dio space is actual and physical, even though our senses detect only a tiny part of it.” [19] “The twentieth century has seen space evolve into a complex soup of electromag- netic radiation.” [19] “The extrasensory nature of electromagnetic radia- tion often leads to its treat- ment as something concep- tual — which easily becomes confused with the notional, although of course it is phys- ical and exists in space.” [19] “We are experiencing a new kind of connection to our artifactual envi- ronment.” [19] “Electronic objects are dis- embodied machines with ex- tended invisible skins every- where.” [19] “It helps us think of electronic objects in “hertzian” terms, as interconnected fields rather than discrete things.” [19] “Designers direct little at- tention toward the possi- ble sensual and poetic ex- perience of this industrially produced new materiality.” [19] “All electronic products are hybrids of radiation and matter” [19]
  • 29. 56 The notion of affordances applied to physical (tangible) ob- jects is more or less clear to all of us. There are simple physi- cal and ergonomic laws which make us use object in certain ways in the first point. These are perfectly demonstrated by Munari’s chair research. Then we add psychological, social and cultural elements to it. Each space is constructed and each settings have their own affordances: even though you can lie on any bench in the street, normally you don’t do it, and even homeless people prefer benches in deserted spaces, not in the middle of crowded square in the daylight. But this theory goes beyond the simple tangible interaction and finds its way also to human-computer field. First of all hertzian space has its own very physical, but not tangible and per- ceived by us, affordances. There are limits of signal strength, interference with other devices, obstacles, even weather and daylight affect the spread of radio waves. They all define how we perceive the interaction even though we don’t always realize what’s really happening. Second level of it is defined by Internet provider or hardware which results in how fast is connection, how much traffic do we get and in the end — what can we do online. Dial-up connection was completely different from modern broadband. We couldn’t imagine streaming video with it. The same way price of 3G traffic stops users from downloading content. And in terms of offer digital world allowed uncommon before flexibility. It’s quite difficult to turn off some exact user from water pipe, it takes a lot of work at least, it’s much easier to control electricity grid, but difficult to diversify the offer, and with wireless communication it’s just in the nature of it. Affrodances of Wi-Fi Infra- structure Experienced Wi-Fi infrastructure is a mix of elements of different levels which provide new flexibility in design “The term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used.” [20] affordance efers to the perceived and actual properties o he thing, primarily those fundamental properties hat determine just how the thing could possibly be used. [2 simple physi- cal and ergonomic laws which make us use object in certain ways in Then we add psychological, social and cultural elements to it hertzian space affordances limits of signal strength, interference with other devices, obstacles, even weather and daylight affect the spread of di Th ll dradio waves. Ti T Second level of Internet provider or hardware w d i Internet provider o how fast is connection, how much traffic do we get what an we do online.
  • 30. 58 What is Wi-Fi? 59 What is Wi-Fi? Then tangible world doesn’t leave us even when connecting to Internet. We’re still using devices for it, so we need to sit properly, hold them somehow, they need electricity and screen protection from sunlight and so on and so forth. Surrounding environment adds to this defining what’s acceptable and not to be done in the specific settings. Cultural code changes it also for different places in the world, Italian public space is different from Russian and even Milanese from Roman. Considering all these facts it’s wrong also to think that “cyber-behaviour” at home and outdoors in public won’t change. “Nothing takes place in a vacuum. As Paul Dourish observes: “interaction is intimately connected with the settings in which it occurs.” His theory of “embod- ied interaction” insists that interactions derive their meaning by occurring in real time and real space and, above all, among and between real people. In Dourish’s view, the character and quality of inter- actions between people and the technical systems they use depend vitally on the fact that both are embedded in the world in specific ways. A video chat is shaped by the fact that I’m sitting in this office, in other words, with its particular arrangement of chair, camera, and monitor.” [21] “interaction is intimately connected wit the settings in which it occurs the character and quality of inter- actions between people and the technical systems depend vitally on the fact that both are embedded in the world in specific ways.
  • 31. 60 61 Wi-Fi Camera Camera that takes “pic- tures” of spaces illumi- nated by Wi-Fi in much the same way that a traditional camera takes pictures of spaces illumi- nated by visible light. Mapping in real space For “Immaterial Wi-Fi Light Painting” project the team used a rod with LED’s attached to it to- gether with Wi-Fi signal reading hardware, then they walked around film- ing the real signal land- scape in the city. Mapping in time Peter Jellitsch was measuring Wi-FI signal strength on different days and then created 3d sculp- ture mapping those tem- poral changes in space. Visualizing Wi-Fi As it’s more difficult to understand affor- dance of something we don’t see, there were numerous at- tempts to visualize hertzian space.
  • 32. 62 63 What is Wi-Fi? Not only professionals and artists are concerned with Wi-Fi landscapes visualization. Users also were in- terested in invisible field with very pragmatic reason — finding open network to connect. This led to the practice of “warchalking” — indicating the presence of nearby wireless networks. Normally a person who have spotted a network would leave a mark in- dicating hotspot’s features and name. These marks were left on walls of the buildings or pavement, obviously with a chalk. Even though with development of digital maps this behaviour became obsolete, it doesn’t mean people lost interest in it, they just continue in the many wireless mapping projects to be found online, ranging from industry-sponsored maps to war-driving or war-flying maps. It destabi- lises distinctions between public and private making visible networks that are supposed to be used by insiders. Sometime “critical design” devices don’t even need to be really produced as their function gets embedded in our behaviour with daily objects. Wi-Fi dows- ing is one of such examples. Interestingly dowsing was a way to find useful re- sources and now Wi-Fi is the main one that we can be searching for in the city. Wifi Dowser (Curious rituals)Wi-Fi Dowsing Rod by David Menting Hertzian space can be manifested through common human be- haviour Daily Life Artifacts warchalking” — indicating the presence of nearby wireless networks.
  • 33. It might be said that there were two waves of city-wide Wi-Fi infrastructure projects. First it started with the very development of standard when everyone decided to use it for urban spaces just because it seemed cool to have. However at that moment there was not much demand — relatively littler amount of people bringing their laptops outdoors — but the price of infrastructure was high. Now there can be seen new interest in city Wi-Fi as mobile devices became primary com- munication tool and also everyone dreams of smart cities, internet of things and many other ideas which require developed infrastructure. So How Do Cities Make Wi-Fi?
  • 34. 66 67 How Wi-Fi? Besides affordances there is an issue of values that get embeded in the infrastructure Laura Forlano is one of the researches of municipal Wi-Fi initiatives and imple- mentations who argues that they’re not very well understood by general public and therefor suffer from a technological determinism of dominating in this field engineers. According to Forlano there are several key concepts that will be helpful in describing wireless networks: affordances, infrastructure and values. First two were already discussed above, but the concept of values is very important. It allows to build on the affordances of wireless networks and embed a range of socio-cultural, economic and political values into the infrastructures that is designed. There are following questions regarding the embodi- ment of values in the design of technologies: What is the locus of control? Are they transparent or opaque? Do they support balanced information exchange? Do they discriminate against users? Do they enhance or diminish trust? For the purposes of understanding wireless networks these questions can be reframed and expanded: Are wireless networks centralized or decentralized? Are they open or closed? Do they use proprietary or open source software? Are they visible or invisible? Is access free or paid? Ownership model is very important in terms of values, there are several of them for municipal wireless networks: privately-owned networks, public-pri- vate partnerships, publicly-owned and community-owned networks. In the beginning of municipal wireless networks many have struggled to identify ap- propriate business models, failed to create workable private-public partner- ships and, as a result, a number of high-profile projects have been cancelled. Discussions about municipal wireless networks would suffer from a lack of public understanding about the properties of wireless technology. It is impor- tant to understand that due to Wi-Fi constraints, it is unlikely that cities will be fully-covered by the network’s signal. However many debates on municipal Wi-Fi continue promising ubiquitous “anytime, anywhere” connection. “This language assumes that place is irrelevant and homogeneous i.e. one place is just the same as any other place, and therefore ignores social needs and usage patterns.” [22] Instead we should face and use specificity of Wi-Fi, cities should consider their unique advantages, needs and cultures before embarking on projects to build municipal wireless networks. This might allow cities to plan network infra- structures that may not be ubiquitous but that focus on meaningful sites of everyday life rather than merely ‘anytime, anywhere’ connectivity. “A better understanding of the city’s potential users would allow the city to design networks, applica- tions and services that could be tailored to the user’s needs”. [22] Designing networks for people requires concepts that describe human behav- ior. While ubiquity and anytime, anywhere access may describe the technologi- cal promises, people’s needs and uses are located in specific places of meaning, culture and community. Values of City Wi-Fi ‘“If we build it they will come” strategies for communications infrastructure deploy- ment, will fail without a reframing of debates that is linked to local concerns and prac- tices.” [22] “If we build it they will come” strategies will fail without a reframing of debates hat is linked to local concerns and prac tices. [2 key concept in describing wireless networks: Fiaffordances, infrastructure and values values is very important. It allows to build on the affordances ofvery important. It allows to build on the affor wireless networks and embed a range of socio-cultural, economic and political values into the infrastructure that is designed Ownership model privately-owned networks, public-pri- vate partnerships, publicly-owned and community-owned networksblicly-owned and community-owned netw Instead we should face and use specificity of Wi-Fi, cities should consider their unique advantages, needs and cultures before embarking on projects to build municipal wireless networks. “A better understanding of the city’s potential users would allow the city to design networks, applica ions and services that could be tailored to the user needs”. [22] Designing networks for people requires concepts that describe human behav- ior.
  • 35. 68 69 How Wi-Fi? Why and How Cities Do Wi-Fi “Holistic urban planning now needs to have some under- standing of the relationship between the city and, say, GPS, wifi, WIMAX, 3G, social software, APIs, FttN, RFIDs, BIM, mesh networks and a thousand other acronyms and neologisms. It’s confusing, complex and in constant flux, but as Reyner Banham once said: when you’re running with technology, you’re in fast com- pany, and you might have to discard the clothes by which you’re recognised as an archi- tect.” [23] City Wi-Fi projects experience the second wave of popularity, but in each case they communi- cate different messages and values It might be said that there were two big waves of mu- nicipal Wi-Fi projects — the first in the beginning of 2000s when technology just became trendy and every city wanted to establish its digital leadership. How- ever many of those hopes failed, especially infamous one is Phildelphia Wi-Fi story in US which will be dis- cussed further. It has marked the end of large-scale public initiatives for that moment. However nowadays with global spread of mobile devices, and upcoming age of Internet of things, wearable devices, connected everything and smart cities, city-wide Wi-Fi becomes a popular idea in many places again. This is very much supported by special attention to city-wide Wi-Fi proj- ects by such a huge company as Cisco, for example. The director of business development for Smart+Connected Communities at Cisco is pushing a new business model for municipal Wi-Fi. Smart mo- bile devices are becoming ubiquitous, and user habits have changed. And with faster speeds and better options for blanket coverage, Cisco sees Wi-Fi as a tool not just for public Internet access but also for enabling a broad range of city services and improving management of existing services. In general there are simple reasons for Wi-Fi projects: enriching community life; en- hancing public safety; providing marketing and communications portals; servicing city employees and sensors; and, most prominently, enhancing local economies by attracting more visitors. Wi-Fi can also facilitate the delivery of municipal information and services to residents and visitors. It can provide a private communications channel to connect city employees and sensors. Importantly, it allows cities to close the digital divide for those outside commercial service zones. But to get there public institutions must decide how to fund a service that does not gain primary revenue from end users. Quality of services may differ a lot and cost varies greatly as does the role of different stakeholders. Funding largely follows the ownership models: Complete public funding by municipal or state governments, and hence by the public. Public-private partnership — where institutions can partner with network providers, ISPs and/or advertisers to help fund Wi-Fi. Complete private funding — a city acts as an ‘anchor tenant’ giving a private network operator use of city-owned assets, spaces and rights of way to provide a for-profit service Besides that Wi-Fi networks have different ‘network roles’ which can be played by both public and private actors: network owner, network operator, internet Service Provider. Who plays which role defines main models: “1. The public institution owns and operates the network and a third party supplies Internet connectivity. 2. The public institution owns the network and third parties operate it and supply Internet connectivity 3. Third parties deliver all the primary network roles owning, operating and supplying Internet connectivity.” [24] The more roles an institution plays the more control it will have over its Wi-Fi network, but it will raise the cost of infrastructure for public. here are simple reasons for Wi-Fi projects: enriching community life; en-i l f Wi Fi j i hi i lif hancing public safety; providing marketing and communications portals; servicing city iemployees and sensors; and, most prominently, enhancing local economies by attracting i i W employ more visitors. id t ‘network roles’t ownership models
  • 36. 70 71 How Wi-Fi? The Philadelphia Story Wireless Philadelphia disregarded the recommenda- tions that grew out of the public process and that sup- ported nonprofit ownership of their wireless network. Instead, WP yielded to political pressure when it ac- cepted EarthLink’s bid to own and operate the net- work. In 2005, EarthLink announced that it would build the nation’s first metropolitan-area Wi-Fi network in Phil- adelphia. Over the next two years, the company also said it would build similar networks in New Orleans, Texas, and California. By 2008, however, EarthLink pulled out of the mu- nicipal Wi-Fi business. It offered to transfer the net- work to Philadelphia for free and donate new Wi-Fi equipment, but city officials said network operation expenses would cost taxpayers too much. Company then shut down the Philadelphia project after it failed to find a buyer for the $17 million unfinished network. More than a year after EarthLink ditched plans for a city-wide Wi-Fi network, Philadelphia officials an- nounced that they will repurchase the existing wire- less assets from Network Acquisition Company (NAC) for $2 million and build the system itself. The city plans to create a “multi-purpose public safety and municipal wireless network that will improve government operations as well as providing free In- ternet to citizens in targeted public spaces,” the city said in a statement. Learning from one of the pioneers’ failure — shifting from public to private and back to pub- lic model Philadelphia will invest an additional $17 million in the network between 2011 and 2015 to build out its existing core fiber network and the wireless mesh network acquired from NAC. Without this initial investment, the city said it would cost more than $30 million, plus several more years of construction, to complete the build-out alone. Officials expect to realize about $350,000 in savings by 2015. Philadelphia expects to use the system to enhance its video surveillance and provide information to officers on the street. The city also plans to provide handheld devices to government field workers so they can file reports and access information re- motely. Officials also expect reduced vendor costs for data communications, as well as lower operating budgets as workers are deployed more efficiently. Consultants say the bigger story about Philadel- phia’s decision is the impact on poorer communities. “For the most part, the broadband stimu- lus program has screwed the urban poor. However, city ownership of broadband could be a powerful new element to the national broadband strategy plan that the FCC is writing, and a path to broad- band adoption for low-income citizens.” It’s argued that WP has underperformed because it de-prioritized public input and constituent inter- ests. WP would have been more effective if it had as- sumed ownership of the network. In the absence of substantial public control over the decision-making process, arguments in favor of public ownership of municipal and/or nonprofit networks may be disre- garded in favor of a “free lunch” corporate ownership model. This case was studied a lot and is good to get some recommendation given by experts to municipal Wi-Fi initiatives that want to do better. For city officials: • Involve all stakeholders. • Sustain open participation. • Promote horizontal relation ships among stakeholders. • Be open with information. • Go offline. • Leverage existing assets. • Seriously consider the ben efits of public/nonprofit owner- ship and open access business models. • Treat connectivity and digital inclusion as basic public rights. [25] For community members and lo- cal organizers: • Organize a coalition. • Get to know the key players and decision-makers. • Be the media and report on the process. • Do your own research and disseminate it within your com- munity. • Start a community wireless project. • Remain actively involved in all steps of the process. [25] For city officials: For community members and lo- cal organizers: Wireless Philadelphia disregarded the recommenda tions that grew out of the public process and that su ported nonprofit ownership of their wireless network. The city plans to create a “multi-purpose public safety and municipal wireless network that will improve government operations as well as providing free In- ternet to citizens in targeted public spaces,” th It’s argued that WP has underperformed because it de-prioritized public input and constituent inter ests. WP would have been more effective if it had as- sumed ownership of the network l bl k
  • 37. 72 73 How Wi-Fi? “City’s phone booths were finally going to enter the 21st century, with some being remodeled with Wi-Fi and touchscreens. Seven months later, it turns out that the 25 up- dated booths were a hit. The city is now setting up 250 of the high-tech telephone booths around its five boroughs. The booths, or “SmartScreen” stations, which are made in partnership with Cicso and LG, feature 32-inch multi-touch displays with apps that let you search for local restaurants or information. Just walk up to the screen and tap it. The booths will also broadcast a Wi-Fi signal.” [27] In 2011, Mayor Bloomberg introduced New York City’s first Digital Roadmap. Less than three years later, with 100% of objectives complete, New York City’s Digital Leadership demonstrates the strides the City has made to date, driven by investments in infrastructure, education, open government, online engagement and technology sector support. There are many initiatives on implementing and en- gaging people in digital government and increasing overall digital literacy as well as stimulating entrepre- neurship in technological sector. And one of the in- struments to reach those goals is improving situation with wireless access in the city. “Increasing wireless connectivity in commercial dis- tricts will help strengthen neighborhoods by attract- ing even more businesses, visitors, and residents to the City’s vibrant commercial corridors.” [26] Free public WiFi will be launched in many areas citywide. In order to imple- ment it, the city has developed numerous partnerships models with various companies. The Bloomberg Administration has prioritized connectivity infra- structure so that all New Yorkers can have access to the networks of informa- tion that make our economy run. “Free public wireless networks in neighborhoods across the five boroughs, along with the new broad- band rating program, will advance our goal of equip- ping all New Yorkers with the tools they need to participate in the innovation economy.” [26] New York City Internet access as one of the elements of digi- tal leadership “If New York City is going re- main competitive in the global economy, we must find ways to support the entrepreneurs who are driving technological advances and creating jobs. With these new initiatives, we are making targeted invest- ments to improve our city’s wireless infrastructure and expand Internet access.” [26] In a new step to improve the city’s Internet access, especially in lower income areas, New York City has announced the launch of what will be the nation’s biggest Wi-Fi network, which will blanket 95 blocks of Harlem. “The network will be completely free of charge, have speeds of at least 2mbits.” [28] But besides providing only connectivity NYC was also very good in exploring physical assets helping it. For example, they have launched a campaign of repurposing phone booths into Wi-Fi hotspots. Another very important initiative is the Digital Vans aimed at helping the residents bridge the digital divide. Essentially vans are computer labs on wheels and are available for residents and community members to link to the Internet, search for job op- portunities, touch-up your resume and much more. The vans travel around the city, stopping in areas that have limited or no access to broadband high-speed internet service. WiFi also al- lows people with their own laptop computers to be outside the van and access the Internet for free. It’s a part of program that seeks to expand broadband access and adoption in communi- ties across America. New York City’s first Digital Roadmap “Increasing wireless connectivity in commercial dis- tricts will help strengthen neighborhoods by attract- ing even more businesses, visitors, and residents to the City’s vibrant commercial corridors.” [26 Free public wireless networks will advance our goal of equip- ping all New Yorkers with the tools they need to participate in the innovation economy.” [26 Digital Vans aimed at helping the residents bridge the digital divide
  • 38. 74 75 Bottom-Up in Bryant Park For a moment while the municipalities were lagging with their huge bureaucratic machine communities were taking advantage NYCwireless is an example of bottom-up approach to WI-Fi in the city, founded in 2001 as an all-volunteer organization. It advocates and enables the growth of free, public wireless Internet access in New York City and surrounding ar- eas. Originally started as an informal group of wireless technology enthusiasts, NYCwireless has grown into a multi-faceted organization that helps individu- als and communities all across New York City to use wireless technology to provide free, public Internet access. NYCwireless has built free, public wireless networks in over ten New York City parks and open spaces through partnerships with local parks organiza- tions.It also has built up a reputation as an advocate of the public interest participating in many official wireless initiatives discussions and representing national wireless community worldwide. The most acknowledged project by NYCwireless is Bryant Park Wi-Fi. It’s an example on how initiative that started with bottom-up then was sustained by higher level organisa- tions when they finally turned their attention to it. Park was designed during the Great Depression on the site of a former reservoir. In Social Life of Public Space it is mentioned as one of the dangerous places in NYC. It’s renovation started in 1988 and today the park has cafes, entertainment, a reading li- brary, lawn games — all amenities tuned to contemporary urban life. One of the important renovation elements was installation of blanket Wi-Fi network on all the park territory. After rejecting several approaches requiring wired benches, standalone kiosks, or other stationary concepts, the idea of creating a wireless en- vironment in the park was born. It became the largest urban hotspot in the world at the moment. NYCwireless implemented the idea with the help of Intel wireless equipment. Network got powered in June 2002. It immediately became a showroom demonstrating possibilities of wifi in the city. Visit to Bryant park has even inspired Estonian Veljo Haamer to cover all the nation with free WiFi. Since that time, the network has undergone several upgrades. In 2011, Bryant Park Corpo- ration teamed with Sky-Packets install a brand new, state of the art wireless network. The lat- est upgrade has made the system capable of ac- commodating thousands of users each day, and has enabled the park to be one of the busiest hotspots in the world. From its birth in the 19th century, the idea be- hind the urban park was to provide an escape from the machines and technology that domi- nate the cityscape outside the ornamental fence. The park is for leisure, not work, but over half the users in Bryant Park are working which doesn’t disappoint administration, on the con- trary they support this idea on their website: “Go wireless and turn Bry- ant Park into your new of- fice. Your clients will be impressed with your front lobby.” [30] According to observations 25% of people come here because of Wi-Fi, but that shouldn’t be tricking on the role of infrastructure on its own. Bryant park has all the user experience ele- ments working together for creation of enjoy- able and functional public space. “…despite the fears that mobile communication technology would drive us all into lives of wire- less isolation, the oppo- site seems to be hap- pening. Bryant Park, like myriad parks and plazas in other cities, is return- ing to a role it filled gen- erations ago: a place to share, read, write, gos- sip, and debate…in short, communicate.” …despite the fears that mobile communication technology would drive us all into lives of wire- less isolation, the oppo- site seems to be hap- pening a place to share, read, write, gos sip, and debate…in short, communicate “Go wireless and turn Br ant Park into your new of- fice. Your clients will be impressed with your front lobby. Visit to Bryan park has even inspired Estonian Veljo Haamer to cover all the nation with free WiFi.