Provide connectivity to a country with 10 persons, digging for meters and meters below the ground to get a fiber, it’s not convenient. Probably if exists a place with 10 people, using the optical fiber is not the right technology and we might consider other solutions. It could also happen that none of these solutions is convenient because these 10 people are “few and pay little”. In this case, giving connectivity to these people it’s no longer a duty of an ISP (Internet Service Provider), which is a company that does not do charity but business, but to someone else. Maybe it can be a duty of the country(GOVERN?) giving access to Internet because Internet means democracy. Choosing the wrong solution is tantamount to throwing out taxpayers money and you can explain it only by the ineptitude or corruption of leaders. Otherwise people can reach an agreement among themselves and realize their own infrastructure. This is what happens in certain Community Wireless Network: FreiFunk in Berlin, Guifi in Catalonia, Diirwb in Denmark, Portugal Unimos, Ninux in Rome. People climb on roofs and start to connect their buildings with air cards, antennas, router that cost less than 100 dollars (and sometimes also less then 50!). Anyway, we need competent persons, familiar with the technologies, knowing how to use them. That is why it is wrong to refer to WiMax as the final solution to all problems of “digital divide”. Say that with three antennas we cover the entire Philadelphia is not only misrepresent a technology but it’s also a technical inaccuracy. Not all know, for example, that the Wimax band is shared. Say that with an “antenna” we will cover 1 / 3 of Philadelphia, it means that the capacity of a Wimax station (70 Mbps) should be divided for about 900,000 people (if they are connected at the same time with their air cards). The result of this absurdity? 77 bits/sec per person! It is good neither to send SMS!
In addition, speed on wireless devices, are worse than that one declared. How many of us go about 54Mbps on WiFi networks? Finally, we must consider that the bands in which WiMax operates are subject to licensing costs. And the devices have their own cost.
And nobody knows if wimax actually will cover the gaps left by Wi-Fi or UMTS / HSDPA / 3G and later technologies.
“It depends on…”. And not just by technology but by the investments, by economic crisis and by technology scenario.
It’s hard to predict the future of these things! It is wrong to think that WiMax and air cards will solve all the problems of citizens presenting them as the FINAL solution to the digital divide.

So what should do a state, a municipality?
1)first of all, do not disturb. One of the first things that a legislator should consider is “do not blocking connectivity”, for one reason or another. I am referring to the recent proposal of “Internet safety act” introduced in Usa by Senator John Cornyn and representative Lamar Smith.

2)Investing in coverage of disadvantaged areas, because the state is NOT a company and should NOT do business only.

3)Encourage cooperation and the free spread of news and information. Covering a small town with wireless technology is not difficult and as we said is often just a matter of money. In this case, the technology “off the shelf” (available on the shelf “) such as Wi-fi is a valid weapon, given the low cost of devices and their wide dissemination. But are we sure that only a little village is the problem? How many people in a big town can not afford the Internet connection? It must become an essential public service such as TV or radio.
Through cooperation within blocks, zones or districts, we are able to spread Internet access and lower the cost of connectivity. Simply passing a cable between neighbors, or connecting each other with access points. Often this is what some already do, but it is illegal. Move towards legalization the re-distribution of Internet access can only be a good thing for a civilized society.

4) Knowing the technologies, trying to avoid to give lapidary opinions. The same WiMax could solve some problems even if not used for distribution to individual users, but to create wireless backbones. For example, some mountain areas could be served with a “point to point” WiMax, while the distribution to individual users could be made with the Wi-Fi, because nowadays everyone has a laptop with air cards. Once you know the different technologies you can not only choose the most “right”, but combine them together for the benefit of all.

The proposals, S 436 and HR 1076, identified by the name of the Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today’s Youth Act (SAFETY Act Internet) have been introduced by Senator John Cornyn and representative Lamar Smith: both provide tougher sentences for anyone to access child pornography online, and new responsibilities for those who facilitate the movement of this material.
By providers of online storage up to email service providers, all risk administrative penalties and up to 10 years in prison if “you should have knowingly in conduct that they know or have reason to believe that it can facilitate access to or possession of child pornography.” The responsibility of content online exchange could fall directly on service providers rather than playing a role as mere intermediaries, they could have to monitor the communications of users they serve.

But the liability of network intermediaries are not limited to the movement of content on platforms, to be involved are also providers of connectivity services. Both draft laws provide that anyone who offers citizens the opportunity to connect in a network trace for a period of two years the IP addresses assigned to Netizen that will leverage their service. “A provider of an electronic communications service and remote computing services - so say the texts of both draft laws - must keep for at least two years all records or other information on the identity of a user which is temporarily assigned a network address. “

Internet wireless café and providers, institutions and private citizens as well as in the case of the previous Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act), a bill introduced in 2007, to be involved are those which may be deemed “providers of services electronic communication “or “providers of remote computing services. ” Given the vagueness with which you delivered the text of the proposed legislation, given the wide range of actors who could invest, those who possessed a router and wish to ensure open connectivity would be to act as provider, would be invested in the same burdens and responsibilities. For example if is someone using a private wifi connection, using a laptop and an air cards, committing an illegal act, the owner of that net are responsible and potentially prosecuted by law.

As for the telephone operators, they will keep track of everything that happens with the mediation of computer they provide. Data should be revealed to law enforcement agencies who request them, as part of the unraveling of an investigation. “If we ask to the phone companies to retain same type of information - say the representative Smith – there is no reason why the law should not be extended to ask ISPs to behave the same way.” “Operators of the police, claimed Smith, should have the tools they need to fight crime, whether it was committed with the use of the phone, whether it was committed online“.
At this point we expect to see policemen equipped with laptop, air cards and pistols ready to look for open wifi to arrest then the owner.

“If Internet has created many changes in the way which we communicate and do business – said Senator Cornyn – its unregulated nature offers anonymity that opened the door to criminals who try to harm innocent children.” Collaboration to ensure a happy life to a child, said Cornyn, must move from local responsibility, state, federal and family. And by the authorities as well as by private individuals who may take the enforcement of laws and the responsibility to collect and store information on citizens. Information stored without any protection, stored in databases that citizens may be unable to manage, that may be unable to ensure protection from indiscreet eyes. Guys who go outside for open wifi, it’s better that you put away your air cards, you are advised.