This Is our Village

Saturday, January 24, 2015


Uh oh, it's happened again. A notice has come from AT&T saying the monthly charge for Internet service, which appears on my telephone bill, is going up by $3.00, from $39 to $42.

I can remember only a few years ago when it cost me $20. Then, if memory serves me right, I changed to their faster service (though not the very fastest) because what I had was incredibly slow. This upped the monthly fee to $25. Since then there have been steady incremental increases. I've just put up with them, because I hate the bother of always changing horses in midstream. I feel the same way about insurances. Some people seem to thrive on "recalculating" everything. I don't .  But sometimes it gets to be too much, and I make a change.

Whether I'll change horses right now, I don't know, but this latest increase has made me think about what I could be saving if we had campus-wide Wi-Fi. Campus-wide Wi-Fi sounds "clean" to me. It would give us Wi-Fi coverage everywhere in the Village with no ands, ifs and buts. The technical people in our Village have given it a lot of thought.

And what would it cost? Let's say (because I am always wary about such things) it cost twice the $4 a month estimated by proponents, or even three times as much: $12 a month. I would still be saving $30 a month!  And the cost, I'm sure, would be a lot more locked in than leaving it in AT&T's hands, or Comcast's!

I know there are other benefits to campus-wide Wi-Fi. I don't understand them all, because I don't have a Smart phone, am a latecomer to all these technological breakthroughs, and, to be frank, my poor brain can't take it all in. Saving $30 or more a month on my Internet charge is enough to convince me, however. I hope the Village revisits campus-wide Wi-Fi. 


  1. Hi Lanny,
    You may thank about six people who form the core of Malcontents for losing Campus wide Wi-Fi.

    Remember them at election time in March.

    Dave Israel

  2. Yes, Lanny. This makes too much sense.

    What does not make sense is to let Lowenstein and Tetro waste time on another audit since whatever bad shape UCO books were in had started during their era. Lowenststein spent $750,000 of CV money on a too small UCO replacement building when we could have a bigger building for only $1.00 per year rent from WPRF and Mr. Levy!!! Why???

    That is what awaits anyone who would recycle that type of chucklehead thinking by allowing retreads back into UCO.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.