said by CtrlAltDel :

I never understood why the city was going to implement free WiFi in neighborhoods where the people could barely afford a $10 bag of Heroin let alone a computer. It couldn't be for the payoffs, could it?

said by howrman :

This just doesn't make sense. Who are you suggesting paid off whom? If Earthlink bribed someone in the City to get the contract, it hasn't worked out as planned. Earthlink stands to lose a truckload of money and the City stands to get a Wifi network for free. If that's the way corrupt government works, I say let's have more of it.

Philadelphians are nothing if not proud of our history, so it was no surprise to me that Philadelphia Mayor John Street was recently reelected despite the discovery of a FBI bug in his city hall office shortly before the election. The news of the bug and the subsequent story that his administration was being investigated for illegally issuing city contracts to campaign contributors actually helped invigorate his campaign.

We appear to be corrupt and contented still.

The time-honored tradition of rewarding political contributors with lucrative city contracts, called "Pay-to-Play," is not unique to Philadelphia. Other cities have similar set-ups. As I understand it, giving contracts to contributors is only illegal if its done on a "quid pro quo" (something for something) basis. That is, if you give the mayor a campaign contribution and then just happen to be awarded a contract, that’s not a crime. But if there is a stated agreement of cash traded for future contracts, that’s a crime.