San Francisco could have required cafes to install Wi-Fi networks and also required them to offer Wi-Fi service free of charge to the public. Then, companies such as FON, could have offered these free (or cheap) FON access points.

said by GOLFnSUN :

Esme Vos: use government fiat to force private businesses to give away service for free. Maybe Vos should change her last name to Lenin or Marx.

said by pnh102 :

I like how she is touted as an "expert" in a racket that has proved to be a complete and total failure every time it has been tried.

quote:

---

Municipal wireless expert Esme Vos ...

---

said by GOLFnSUN :

Bio:
»www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/san_francisc···/Vos.htm

A lawyer!! Yuck!

said by GOLFnSUN :

Bio:
»www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/san_francisc···/Vos.htm

A lawyer!! Yuck!

said by factchecker :

Look out, TK is trolling again with an excellent example of an appeal to mockery.

said by pnh102 :

Why is it wrong to mock your opponent when she is so obviously wrong?

Municipal wireless has failed everywhere it has been tried.

It will fail in San Francisco too.

said by factchecker :

Read the link and you will see why. If you want to discredit them, discredit them based on the merits of your own position or lack of merit in their own position ...

said by factchecker :

Your statement false. It has not failed EVERYWHERE that it has been tried.

said by factchecker :

Which project ? There are several of them and some of them are alive and kicking.

said by factchecker :

Look out, TK is trolling again with an excellent example of an appeal to mockery.

said by GOLFnSUN :

Whose the troll who keeps posting without registering. Something to hide?

said by pnh102 :

It has already been established that municipal wireless has failed.

There's nothing wrong with mocking those who continue to preach a failed idea over and over again, because what they advocate is a failure, and their continuing to advocate it is just plain stupid.

And where has it worked?

The only way I see a city-wide wifi deployment (or some other internet access) succeeding is if it is done by a private outfit.

said by factchecker :

It is erroneous to conclude that all muni-wifi operations have failed based on the subset that have failed.

said by factchecker :

In the context of any serious debate, it is indeed poor form and illustrates poor debating skills to do that.

said by factchecker :

Check in a post further down... There is a link to one successful project.

said by factchecker :

Earthlink illustrates that argument to be dubious. Earthlink, a private company, ran several of those failed projects right into the ground.

said by pnh102 :

When quite a large number have failed, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the process, then it is still valid to conclude that cities should avoid these projects. Heck, even when they are running and still costing taxpayers (still failing in my book) you still can't make the argument that they are good.

Why? There is nothing wrong with using a little humor to point out the truth.

Spokane Wifi still needs money from the city, so it costs taxpayers' money which could have been spent on other things. Maybe if it ran entirely as a private non-profit I could change my mind about it.

`If you look at Philadelphia as an example, you'll notice that the city dumped quite a bit of taxpayer money into that project. This was far more than the $220K I initially reported.

said by factchecker :

When there is a lack of investment by incumbents, a lack of interest on the part of incumbents to develop that area for broadband, you bet your gills they are good.

said by factchecker :

The problem is how you define "successful"... If you are expecting these operations to be cash positive from the starting gate, I suggest that you become more familiar with the telecom industry and the average time for an ROI.

said by factchecker :

Then it isn't a discussion or serious debate. It falls down to the level of folks like Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken - bullshit.

said by factchecker :

All cities are different and I trust localities to determine how best to spend their money. You might not believe your town or city needs a muni network, and that is fine, but to try to dictate what other cities should and should not do runs counter to the idea of local control that conservatives such as your self believe in.

said by factchecker :

And? Still doesn't change the fact that it was a private enterprise that drove it into the ground.

said by factchecker :

The idea that private enterprise can do it better was dealt a nice blow when all these cities outsourced the networks to Earthlink.

said by pnh102 :

But I can say that about any luxury item. There's a lack of private capital that would buy everyone a Bentley, so let's have taxpayers buy one for everyone.

I don't. But if a private entity is footing the cost, then the taxpayers won't be left holding the bag if the venture should fail.

It still isn't fair to taxpayers that local governments can spend money willy-nilly on pie-in-the-sky projects like this. That's why I believe states should ban them. Conservatives believe that states should have full authority to govern where the federal government does not have authority, and since all local government is subservient to the state, then suggesting a ban at the state level on this sort of thing fits right in line with conservative principles.

But then how do you explain the success that 3G wireless providers, such as Verizon and AT&T, have enjoyed when they deployed this service?

said by factchecker :

That's what you call a misuse of hyperbole. Buying a Bentley for everyone with tax money is vastly different than communications infrastructure improvements with tax money.

said by factchecker :

I have to ask then, do you show the same disdain for government subsidizing the following: oil, farmers, the defense industry, the airlines, etc.

said by factchecker :

And just because a private entity is running the network doesn't mean that tax payer money won't be used to fail it out. Guess what happens if your local telephone company was close to going tits up? Magic words... Bail out.

said by factchecker :

Suggesting that states should ban localities from doing muni-networks is, prima facia, the same as the federal government banning states from doing something.

said by factchecker :

The idea that communities should be able to do this when private industry fails to, based on a majority of the voting population supporting it is absolutely in line with conservative ideas.

said by factchecker :

Because, in reality, all statewide bans do is protect incumbent providers.

said by factchecker :

You do realize that the target group is different when talking about 3G and something like muni-wifi or wimax?

said by factchecker :

3G is aimed at the mobility segment of the market and is NOT a last mile replacement - speed, latency, ability to run applications like VoIP, etc.