Well, most obviously, that physical wires are messy and inconvenient, and that ethereal connections are better. And that short-distance radio links are a safe and effective way bridge the final gap between network connection and computer user. I suppose it also assumes that slivers of the radio spectrum—technically a public good—should be reserved for just such use.

It assumes that there is a need for quick, reliable, and flexible access to information, and that the value of information is common (especially among middle to upper class).  We are an information-driven society.

Wi-Fi assumes that access to the internet anytime, anywhere is a good thing.

Information and connectivity should be immediately accessible from anywhere.

Ditto, Brad - and, in many urban cases at least, that it should be free of charge.

Well, it made this post (and this comment) possible not just by lending a topic, but by allowing for its bit-by-bit transmission. Since much of my Wi-Fi use is around the house, it makes possible the use of the internet from all sorts of different literal postures: at the table, on the couch, while watching TV, in bed. Other comments get at the sort of things that are crowded out by that pervasiveness (stillness and silence etc.), but Wi-Fi does make my home a lot more enjoyable and less cluttered: gone the days of slinging a 50ft ethernet cable down the hall every time I wanted to use the laptop at a comfortable work table.

This post too, Nate. It makes possible watching any number of television shows any time on sites like Hulu.com and various network web sites, with no need for a recording device. It makes possible the editing of my web site, the uploading of blog entries, and the checking of email from my bed, my sofa, my dining room table, the coffee shop, and some trains and buses.

Solitude. My WiFi signal permeates my home, constantly beckoning me to check my various connections to the world—email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.—rather than being quiet and still, or concentrated and focused on a difficult task.

Solitude: absolutely.  It also makes concentration apart from wifi accessibility difficult.  The brain becomes hard and soft-wired to respond quickly to diverse and tangential stimuli, making other distractions that much more distracting.  In coffee shops, where wifi is most prevalent, it changes what could be an intensely social experience into a place where people gather to be alone.

Observing the sabbath and keeping it holy is much harder now that I can so easily “just check my email real quick.” For that matter, shutting off “work mode” is much harder in general, sabbath or no, particularly because I now watch TV and movies mainly online, so my work is right there, just a toggle away.

Explicit and implicit norms of public behavior, like the WiFi-free weekends some coffeeshops have imposed in hopes of fostering greater human sociability and higher coffee sales. And, eventually perhaps, a distinct genre of coffeeshops and public spaces that are proudly and explicitly WiFi-free.

New modes of public sharing: is use of your neighbor’s Wi-Fi stealing or serendipity? Conversely, is leaving one’s own home network open to outsiders an act of generosity or mere foolishness?
New ways of augmenting reality: Those cars that drive around mapping our streets also map our Wi-Fi signals, and suddenly our computers can discover where they are, and provide the curious user with information that helps them inhabit the place *more* rather than *less*. Wi-Fi makes placelessness more possible and more attractive, but it also opens doors to what I’d call placefulness, as we search out and discover the stories and meanings of the things right by us.