Slightly breathless article from Columbia University's School of Journalism wire service about the intent of community hot spots and hot zones: The tone is quite strident, but many of the quotes are interesting for their refreshing candor. When someone's interviewed by a student journalist, they obviously drop some of the filters.
I object to something presented as straight news that has so many loaded words, even unintentionally. I mean "so-called" community wireless movement? So-called carries a connotation of inaccuracy. In fact, it's been widely labeled by many segments of the industry and by the participants themselves as community networking or community wireless networking. (Usually you say so-called, or more pretentiously soi-disant, to mean self-styled, such as the so-called emperor in exile of Alaska, who lives in a tiny shack in Arkansas.)
But the underlying story is quite compelling, and it's gathering steam. Mainstream publications, analysts, and industry folks are all asking: will commercial hot spots have enough to offer in contrast to the rampant free service (community, municipal, and business based) to get the subscribers to support the infrastructure?
In fact, I'm chairing a panel called "Who Will Pay?" on this topic at the 802.11 Planet conference in June. The CEO of Schlotzsky's is scheduled for that panel along with some of the usual suspects to address the future of for-fee hot spots.