pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to mstrlogcrw
Re: "BIG" telecoms
said by mstrlogcrw  :Shouldn't cities be focusing on taking care of all their other budgetary problems before introducing city-wide wifi? Here's a brief list of some of the priorities that the City of Philadelphia should actually be addressing:
•The closures of at least 8 fire stations
•The possible layoffs of numerous police officers
•Lousy public schools. Yesterday another child was gunned down at school
•Sorry Excuse for a Public Transit Authority (SEPTA)
•A scandal-plagued mayor and city government which is currently under FBI investigation
In a city where there is already plentiful broadband access, I just don't see why a single nickel should be wasted on a useless wireless network.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| I think you have to look at the bigger picture here and not just Philly - albeit a large city (and that is why the national spotlight has suddenly been turned on and the WSJ has done a story). The question really is, should the telcos be able to dictate what local governments can and cannot do with their infrastructure? AND, what can those cities provide for their residents across that infrastructure? Why should private industry get to dictate that to a city? Or to a rural community? No wonder we are behind! What are we, #13th in the world now because the telcos have held back at rolling out fiber until they could keep all the money for themselves?
Some of these communities in our country today have to have the choice to provide these services for their communities because no one else is coming. They just aren't deemed profitable enough for the telcos.
I think it is very dangerous to give the telcos "the only keys to the car" here. They will drive the car right into the river.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| It is indeed a much bigger picture. This is one of those points where two public policies of wide acceptance collide. Those policies are:
1. States are our basic level of government. The federal government gets its power from the Constitution, which was adopted by the states. Within a state, the state government controls the allocation of government power between and among all "lesser" governmental units (cities, counties, townships, special purpose districts, boards, commissions, etc.)
2. Telecom competition is wide open to all comers, based on federal policies.
Normally, we wouldn't think twice about one state saying that its cities could not, or could (or even were required to) enter some line of business. (Garbage collection comes to mind--some places it's a municipal task, some places there is a regulated monopoly, and some places it's competitive.)
Because broadband access (and it's particular variant, Wi-Fi) is both new and unevenly available, there are a number of uncommon forces coming to bear on this particular question.
For me, the question is decided based on the duplicity and arbitrariness demonstrated by the private providers--but others may well base their thoughts on other factors.
A stimulating debate, to be sure--and one we should all be very glad is seeing the light of day. Of course, those cockroaches who prefer to work in the dark probably don't appreciate the publicity, however.:D
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
spepper
join:2003-11-09
USA | reply to Octopussy2
....ah yes, they would PARK that car and charge anyone through the nose to "ride" in it! |
|
