Should Cities Provide Wifi?
Information travels across the Internet close to the speed of light, so it could go around the world almost 7.5 times in one second. Today, Americans spend around eleven hours on electronic media, most of which requires Internet connection. Because people spend so much time online, some think that cities providing wireless internet would be beneficial. Regardless of how often people use wireless Internet, it should not be necessary for cities to make it available to their residents.
Providing wireless Internet to a whole city would not be safe or realistic. Public networks leave connected devices at a greater risk to be hacked. A quick Internet search reveals article after article detailing how to hack into a device using the same network. If cities provided free Internet, anyone who used it would become susceptible to hackers. There would be no feasible way to control the hacking, and the city would have yet another liability. Additionally, cities would have a difficult time paying for the Internet and placing enough routers to insure citywide coverage. Each router only covers so much space, and cities occupy large areas. Cities don’t have the ability to make Internet available to everyone and keep it protected.
A city shouldn’t have to provide Internet access because in many public places and most homes, people already have access. Various coffee shops and restaurants give their customers access to Internet. McDonald’s alone has over 11,500 locations with free access to wireless Internet and many other chain restaurants and businesses offer it. Wherever someone wants to use Internet in cities, it is probably already provided. Cities would give people coverage where they don’t need it, like while walking down the sidewalk or driving in a car. Many people pay for Internet in their homes, so they don’t need the city to provide Internet to them. Because a lot of public places and residential areas have Internet access, it’s not necessary for a city to put Internet access anywhere else.
Some people would argue that Internet should be provided because it is necessary for day-to-day life and widely used. People communicate over the Internet and rely on it for information. Emails and texts while sent at work are most likely using the Internet, so communication between co-workers would be difficult without access to wireless Internet. However, adults are responsible and independent enough to pay for Internet monthly. People need to pay their own bills for housing, electricity, water, and other necessities. Because the city doesn’t provide residents with those basic needs for free, wireless Internet shouldn’t be available to residents for free. Even though Internet may be widely used in a professional setting, people can enjoy other pastimes without Internet when they aren’t at work. Activities like shopping and going to a park can be enjoyed without constant Internet connection. Internet access is not necessary while out in a city and people should be individually responsible for their Internet.
By providing wireless Internet in cities, the city would have plenty of new problems. Future cities would have less funding for other important projects. They would also be putting citizens in danger every time they used the public Internet and facing the issue of controlling crimes over the Internet. It is not beneficial for cities to provide wireless Internet to their residents.
Great opening statement and use of diction! Your word choice made your article sound more professional and ‘realistic’. Your use of logos was very informative, but try mixing things up and add pathos to really hook your audience. Great article! Kendall M -OHS
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback! I’ll be sure to try to use more pathos in future articles.
LikeLike
You make a great point and I agree. Especially with the fact that city wide wifi could be harmful to the user by either hacking the device or stealing their identity. And your use of logos is great and so is your ethos. Although you really didn’t use pathos your topic doesn’t really let you use a lot of it to be effective. But overall its great.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
This argument was very skillfully crafted. There was a quite generous use of logos, and you have made it quite unequivocal that your point was correct. You managed to support all of your ideas and all of your points made send. I spotted a few ambiguities in your argument. In the first paragraph you give the statistic of internet usage by Americans but do not provide the time-span which it occurs over. In your closure, you use the phrase “other important projects.” This implies that this project is also important. Other than these ambiguities, the only other revision I would make would be to strengthen the closure. You could possibly use more assertive word choice. This article was overall well crafted and presented a point successfully.
The coolest of them all,
Levent
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback! You helped me see how I could be more explicit in the future and what I need to work on.
LikeLike
Logic was the strongest point in this piece and it was done very well. Cities providing wifi would cause some definite problems like hacking and payments. Imagery is used greatly to describe these events occurring. Emotion could be played with some more. For example, describe how an old woman used public wifi, got hacked, lost all her money and is now very sad. That would pull at the heart strings and get people really concerned. These piece was put together exquisitely, nicely done.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate that you gave me an example of how I could use pathos.
LikeLike
You article was very well written and quite convincing. You did a really good job of tying facts into your argument and your first sentence was interesting and made me want to read your article. Although having wifi from any point in a city would be nice i agree that its not the city’s responsibility to provide wifi for people, and that connecting to that wifi could lead to many issues like hacking.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
The reasoning you use to support your argument is very well-structured and convincing! The facts at the introduction act as a compelling hook, and really catch the attention of the reader. You did a really good job of making a counterargument, and the word choice and organization of the article are effective. The only thing I would change is small–in any formal piece of writing, contractions should usually be avoided. Other than that small grammatical issue, the essay is really well done and persuasive.
-Emily (RL)
LikeLike
The topic is very interesting and Unique and I have not seen it written about before. I like how you including both sides of the argument, but maybe finding an example of a city with this proposed plan for internet could have strengthened the argument further.
LikeLike
I like this argument a lot. It is very new and you make good points. I like how you included how having cities provide wifi would become a liability because people dont tend to think about the concerns of the city. Instead of focusing on what people want you focused on what was realistic. Good job
LikeLike
Before reading your piece, I would have said I supported free wifi for cities. After reading your points though, I am forced to concede that providing it would present a whole new set of problems and may not be as necessary as I once believed. Good work for making me re-think this issue!
I wanted to know a bit more about the dangers of hacking–like what information could be hacked and how that could present dangers to the victim. That could have also added some pathos to your argument, which previous commenters agreed would make it stronger. ~Mrs. C
LikeLike
It was very good, like others have said, it was mostly logos and not enough pathos. Overall it was very informative and you supported your ideas very well.
LikeLike