said by factchecker :

Video service... Not ISP service... Only video service was really affected. Verizon could have easily rolled just data and phone.

said by factchecker :

Actually, it is a capacity issue. Sprint has started running into issues with backhaul saturation on towers in some of largest markets. Until 4G wireless or greater backhual becomes more readily accessible, the caps will remain.

said by factchecker :

Hopefully Sprint doesn't pull 5GB caps on their enterprise customers because we'll definitely consider pulling out of our contract if they do.

And why not? We saw how FIOS video was held up in NYC (and in other areas) over concerns regarding cherry-picking. The end result of this was no one got any video service. We also saw that in places where there were looser restrictions, such as Indiana, there was broader deployment of service.

I'm curious about this too. My personal guess is that Sprint just wants to have a way to cut off people who they believe abuse their service. At the very least Sprint and Verizon advertise their caps, unlike some other ISPs.

said by factchecker :

It is nice to see the meaning of the words "irrefutable" and "truth" being abuse... There is nothing irrefutable about this.

said by factchecker :

The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because of the mixed success of such operations.

said by factchecker :

Any one who claims that every muni operations out there is a failure is either lying or distorting the truth because of an agenda.

said by factchecker :

I could show you quite a few HR portals that are so bogged down in useless Flash crap that it would take quite a while to fill out an application as you wait for the pages to load.

said by factchecker :

As for the library option, keep that in mind next time the library asks for more taxes to pay for the additional computers and bandwidth to meet the demand of the patrons.

said by factchecker :

Nice diversion there... You shift the demand for broadband from end users to the companies that generate content with the flick of the wrist... Amazing. To bad that isn't how it works.

said by factchecker :

End users want broadband... Most are willing to pay. The marketplace has failed them. Period.

said by factchecker :

We've hashed this point out... You have your opinion, I have mine.

said by factchecker :

Note that things like franchise agreements don't apply.

said by factchecker :

So? Let them speak their mind at the voting box when measures like this are put up for a vote. Simple as that because in that case, everyone gets to voice their opinion.

said by factchecker :

Get ready for that to change. Note the story post this morning about Sprint and other providers moving to caps. It is a capacity issue and it will take years to resolve.

said by factchecker :

3G is not, nor never was, designed as a last mile replacement technology.

said by pnh102 :

Again, the fact that it is a irrefutable truth renders such a judgement irrelevant.

People can still use dialup or a public library for these things.

So why give a handout to Corporate America? If private companies want broadband, let them pay for it.

So then when the next "free" fad comes along, it would be ok for local residents to vote themselves that too? Especially when it comes from the backs of other taxpayers? If I were an enterprising politician... I would promise free Bentleys.

So can local government. In many regards, local governments create more of an impediment to broadband than anything else by making ridiculous demands from ISPs in exchange for the right to conduct business.

I am certain that you can find people like me in just about every state. Ergo, I can claim that I speak for them.

True, true, and I know that in one of those situations Verizon did yank access. However, I think for the most part they don't use enough bandwidth to get noticed.

said by factchecker :

Still hyperbole.

said by factchecker :

For example, the number of HR departments that will accept paper applications is declining. In fact, most employers now list only on their own HR websites and no longer in print media.

Wanna get a manual for an appliance? Most manufacturers will no longer send them to you, instead sending you to the internet.

said by factchecker :

Corporate America is rapidly converting to the internet as their preferred and, in some cases, sole means of communication.

said by factchecker :

I'm more inclined to allow local residents to decide that on their own...

said by factchecker :

State governments are so easily bought off, it isn't even funny.

said by factchecker :

And I'm of the opinion that neither you or I should be determining what is or is not right for a locality, and neither should politicians who take kick backs from incumbents and are clueless about the localities in their state.

said by factchecker :

I'd like to let you know that your friends may very well run afoul of the providers doing that. I know they are using it as their primary connections, but providers never intended their 3G networks to be used in such a manner.

said by factchecker :

Additionally, 3G networks are not designed for that type of use.

said by pnh102 :

It is also called the truth.

Internet access, like a Bentley, is a luxury item. People lived for thousands of years without Bentleys or Internet access, and they will continue to do so.

They also shield taxpayers from paying more and more money for a venture that the local government shouldn't be doing anyway. I say that is a good tradeoff.

I have some friends of mine who use 3G as their primary broadband provider because they cannot get DSL or cable where they are. I am certain they are not the only people who do this either. In a sense, whether or not it was intended, 3G is being used as a replacement for wired broadband.

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.

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 :

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 :

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 :

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 :

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 OverModded :

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

said by factchecker :

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

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 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 :

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

said by OverModded :

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

A lawyer!! Yuck!

said by OverModded :

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

A lawyer!! Yuck!

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 OverModded :

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.

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.