"Wi-fi venture tests Philadelphia"

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4491506.stm>

Wireless Philadelphia is a project that has been in development for
several years, but which will not be finished until late 2006.

It seems such an agreeable proposition to everybody involved - cheap
wi-fi for an entire city.

"A citizen will pay a base fee of $10 or $20 depending upon their
income status, for access to the network," explained the city's chief
information officer, Dianah Neff.

However, the project has stirred up a bees' nest, and has
implications for the whole of America.

[MORE]

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

John Navas wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4491506.stm>
>
> Wireless Philadelphia is a project that has been in development for
> several years, but which will not be finished until late 2006.
>
> It seems such an agreeable proposition to everybody involved - cheap
> wi-fi for an entire city.
>
> "A citizen will pay a base fee of $10 or $20 depending upon their
> income status, for access to the network," explained the city's chief
> information officer, Dianah Neff.
>
> However, the project has stirred up a bees' nest, and has
> implications for the whole of America.
>
> [MORE]
>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyber...hia_11-22.html

Not long after Wireless Philadelphia announced a pricing structure of
$10 to $20 for its service, Verizon rolled out a new offer of its own.

AD SPOKESMAN: More and more people are getting it, getting Verizon
Online DSL, that is, especially now that it's just $14.95 a month.

TERENCE SMITH: The battle over whether WiFi should be a public utility
or a private enterprise and how it should be priced may just be warming up.


Rob

--
http://www.childhooddiseases.org/
http://www.grid.org/projects/cancer/

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <dmukts$5p$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 4 Dec 2005
11:46:04 +0000 (UTC), Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4491506.stm>
>>
>> Wireless Philadelphia is a project that has been in development for
>> several years, but which will not be finished until late 2006.
>>
>> It seems such an agreeable proposition to everybody involved - cheap
>> wi-fi for an entire city.
>>
>> "A citizen will pay a base fee of $10 or $20 depending upon their
>> income status, for access to the network," explained the city's chief
>> information officer, Dianah Neff.
>>
>> However, the project has stirred up a bees' nest, and has
>> implications for the whole of America.
>>
>> [MORE]
>>
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyber...hia_11-22.html
>
>Not long after Wireless Philadelphia announced a pricing structure of
>$10 to $20 for its service, Verizon rolled out a new offer of its own.
>
>AD SPOKESMAN: More and more people are getting it, getting Verizon
>Online DSL, that is, especially now that it's just $14.95 a month.
>
>TERENCE SMITH: The battle over whether WiFi should be a public utility
>or a private enterprise and how it should be priced may just be warming up.

We've had that DSL pricing here in the SF Bay Area with "the new AT&T"
(formerly SBC) *without* muni Wi-Fi, so there's really no relevance.

OTOH, Verizon is being forced to compete unfairly with a muni enterprise,
which is relevant.

Muni is a bad idea. Internet access isn't an essential public service.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
Snip..........................................
>
> We've had that DSL pricing here in the SF Bay Area with "the new AT&T"
> (formerly SBC) *without* muni Wi-Fi, so there's really no relevance.
>
> OTOH, Verizon is being forced to compete unfairly with a muni enterprise,
> which is relevant.
>
> Muni is a bad idea. Internet access isn't an essential public service.
>
The original article was about Philadelphia so I fail to see the
relevance of "SF Bay Area".Competition is something the corporate world
should thrive on instead of throwing tantrums.
Since you used a "non Philly ref"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120201853.html

--
http://www.childhooddiseases.org/
http://www.grid.org/projects/cancer/

John Navas wrote:
Snip..............................................

Internet access isn't an essential public service.
>
I am glad I live in the UK.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publ...gitalframe.pdf

Digital inclusion is not about computers, the internet or even
technology. It is about using technology as a channel to improve skills,
to enhance quality of life, to drive education, and to promote economic
well-being across all elements of society. Digital inclusion is really
about social inclusion, and because of this, the potential for
technology to radically improve society and the way we live our lives
should not be underestimated.

--
http://www.childhooddiseases.org/
http://www.grid.org/projects/cancer/

John Navas wrote:

> OTOH, Verizon is being forced to compete unfairly with a muni enterprise,
> which is relevant.
>
> Muni is a bad idea. Internet access isn't an essential public service.

Well, when you're trying to attract business, it's a selling point. It'll
happen more and more.
--
derek

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <dmvdlm$56u$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 4 Dec 2005
18:48:22 +0000 (UTC), Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>Snip..........................................
>>
>> We've had that DSL pricing here in the SF Bay Area with "the new AT&T"
>> (formerly SBC) *without* muni Wi-Fi, so there's really no relevance.
>>
>> OTOH, Verizon is being forced to compete unfairly with a muni enterprise,
>> which is relevant.
>>
>> Muni is a bad idea. Internet access isn't an essential public service.
>>
>The original article was about Philadelphia so I fail to see the
>relevance of "SF Bay Area".

The relevance is that low prices come from competition, not from government
interference.

>Competition is something the corporate world
>should thrive on instead of throwing tantrums.

Indeed, but government interference isn't real competition -- the game is
fixed.

>Since you used a "non Philly ref"
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120201853.html

Hours after New Orleans officials announced Tuesday that they would deploy
a city-owned, wireless Internet network in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
regional phone giant BellSouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate one of its
damaged buildings that would have housed new police headquarters, city
officials said yesterday.
[MORE]

Can't say I blame 'em. Something the city should have thought of in the first
place. TANSTAAFL.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <dmvh5s$nsr$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 4 Dec 2005
19:48:12 +0000 (UTC), Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>Snip............................................. .
>
> Internet access isn't an essential public service.
>>
>I am glad I live in the UK.

So am I.

>http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publ...gitalframe.pdf
>
>Digital inclusion is not about computers, the internet or even
>technology. It is about using technology as a channel to improve skills,
>to enhance quality of life, to drive education, and to promote economic
>well-being across all elements of society. Digital inclusion is really
>about social inclusion, and because of this, the potential for
>technology to radically improve society and the way we live our lives
>should not be underestimated.

Then why is living in the USA the envy of the world?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <sq1e63-(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:09:47 -0400,
Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> OTOH, Verizon is being forced to compete unfairly with a muni enterprise,
>> which is relevant.
>>
>> Muni is a bad idea. Internet access isn't an essential public service.
>
>Well, when you're trying to attract business, it's a selling point. It'll
>happen more and more.

I seriously doubt it. The reverse is likely to be true, as such folly adds to
the tax rate, and drives away the telecom services that businesses want.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <p68lf.231371$(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <dmvh5s$nsr$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 4 Dec 2005
>19:48:12 +0000 (UTC), Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>Snip............................................ ..
>>
>> Internet access isn't an essential public service.
>>>
>>I am glad I live in the UK.
>
>So am I.
>
>>http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publ...gitalframe.pdf
>>
>>Digital inclusion is not about computers, the internet or even
>>technology. It is about using technology as a channel to improve skills,
>>to enhance quality of life, to drive education, and to promote economic
>>well-being across all elements of society. Digital inclusion is really
>>about social inclusion, and because of this, the potential for
>>technology to radically improve society and the way we live our lives
>>should not be underestimated.
>
>Then why is living in the USA the envy of the world?

It isn't, the wave of immigration in the US is coming from the developing
world, not the developed world, all developed countries have people 'lined
up' at the border to get in. What do you think the recent riots in France
were about, immigrants from the developing world not happy with the way
they are treated. Not trying to debate the right or wrong of their claim,
just pointing out that everyone has immigration from the developing world.
The US is not the magnet it once was. Our standard of livving is well down
the list of developed countries, our life expectancy is lower, etc, etc.

But to specificallly address your point. Consider a muni wifi network, now
on the cheap traffic signals can be controled to speed fire and emergency
services thru town, easy quick access for police to run checks on vehicles
etc. The benefits to local government of a muni wireless network are
boundless. Free/cheap internet into the city's schools, access to that
school network from home, regardless of the ability to shell out $50 a
month for high speed internet (I don't live in SF, I live in the rest of
America and internet isn't cheap out here). Businesses cashing in on
taxpayer funded research is fine (DARPA Net) and more power to them, but
government should be allowed to take advantage of government funded
research and developments for the public good. That isn't commmunism, that
is just taking care of the common wealth. Remember the air waves belong to
us all, we just allow thru government others to have exclusive access to
some. Al Gore may not have invented the Internet, but the taxpayer sure
funded the invention, why should he be allowed to take advantage of the
technology he paid for?

>

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.