Jeremy_in_SF
@sbcglobal.net
 from:
Blackened 
| the full story on the wi-fi hearing
For in depth coverage of the hearing, check out this excellent blog post: »sfciviccenter.blogspot.com/2007/···ing.html
Kimo Crossman is a local activist who knows this issue as well as anyone. Here's an excerpt from his comments on what's wrong with this deal:
“This isn’t a public/private partnership. This is a franchise agreement, just like the Comcast agreement. Also, we keep hearing this thing about “universal access.” Well, there’s no service level agreement in this contract. You look at the contract today, and it doesn’t say 90% indoor coverage, it doesn’t say 95% outdoor coverage. It says NO percentage committed coverage in it.
"If Earthlink and Google think coverage is so great, and they have all the problems solved, up in the fourth and fifth floors, then why don’t you put it in the contract to require them to give free DSL to anyone who can’t get the coverage? Let them put their money where their mouth is, especially in poor district neighborhoods.
"The city would be wise to do as Philadelphia did and insist on a pilot before a contract is agreed to. That’s completely reasonable. Philadelphia insisted on the pilot, so why can’t San Francisco insist on a pilot?
"And let’s remember, Google is giving one megabyte, 1,000K speed, for free to Mountain View. San Francisco’s only getting a third of that speed. What’s up with that? That’s not fair. We should at least ask for a thousand K."
This blog post has a youtube clip of Crossman's full two-minute testimony.
»sfwillie.blogspot.com/2007/05/ki···ero.html |
