NYC unveils its pay phone Wi-Fi plan, promising 10,000 hotspots

Tim Chambers:

Love this. More please, Mayors and City Councils….

Originally posted on Gigaom:

After two years of trials and planning, New York City is finally ready to move forward on its plan to turn old pay phones into internet and information kiosks. It has selected CityBridge, a consortium of companies including Qualcomm and Transit Wireless, to replace up to 10,000 outdoor pay phones in all five boroughs with slick new internet stations called Links.

The network will be called LinkNYC, and it will offer a free, advertising-supported broadband service to all New Yorkers and visitors. The city is promising gigabit speeds from the network, though you probably shouldn’t get your hopes up that your connection to these kiosks will be faster than your connection at work or home.

LinkNYC is probably using new 802.11ac Wi-Fi technologies, which can theoretically support speed over a gigabit if the connecting device has the proper radio and antennas, but few devices today do. Plus, unless NYC is…

View original 214 more words

New “Subatomic Unit” of News

This rings very true to me:

“Wearables could make the ‘glance’ a new subatomic unit of news

I misjudged — I didn’t think nearly radically enough. The quick-hit stream of Twitter or the Facebook News Feed is giving way to a largely agnostic, mostly opt-in “notification layer” on top of the phone screen.

And yet even that notification layer feels larded in the context of the single-most-interesting media-industry detail from yesterday’s Apple presentation: We are about to enter the era of ‘glance journalism.’”

With Named Data Networking, a group of researchers promise a future without servers and IP addresses

Tim Chambers:

A fascinating idea: turning DNS into in essence a “bittortent” like serverless and IP-free network. Every device and computer on the Internet just peers, and nodes. Will be curious to see if this effort gains steam.

Originally posted on Gigaom:

A team of researchers from universities and big tech companies have united to advance and popularize the concept of Named Data Networking (NDN), which calls for a new type of internet architecture that does away with the standard Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol that’s currently used to distribute information over the web.

The Named Data Networking Consortium — whose members include team leader University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), University of Michigan, [company]Cisco Systems[/company], [company]Verisign[/company] and others — held the first of its series of meetings on Wednesday and Thursday of this week in which they discussed the current state of NDN and its potential to improve scientific research.

Earlier this summer, Gigaom’s Stacey Higginbotham detailed how NDN fits into the future of the internet and how the emerging technology could take advantage of the connected world. In its simplest form, today’s era of networking involves servers that transmit data to…

View original 271 more words

“New Voter Guide Follows the Money”

Cool: very worthwhile effort here:

“Can information about which candidates people give money to produce a better voter guide?

One problem with voter guides, despite their worthy intentions and the seriousness of their approach, is that there is rarely a common baseline from which to evaluate two or more candidates. A 30-year incumbent’s record usually dwarfs that of a first-time challenger who has never held office. But those two candidates do have something in common — fund-raising — and that forms the backbone of Crowdpac, a site that aims to produce a data-driven voter guide to help voters decide which candidates to support.

Led by a Stanford political scientist, a former Google business development executive and a former senior adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, Crowdpac takes federal and state campaign finance data — who donates money to whom — and uses that and other details to calculate a political position along a spectrum for candidates. Not only are donations to candidates included, but contributions between candidates and other organizations are also listed….”