trusty
join:1999-08-26
Chicago, IL
| reply to ninjatutle
Re: Whoa
They should demand their money back too. Or better yet, get as many people to pay their next bill late. That will make them sit up and take notice!
Who's with me? Who has the flaming torches and pitchforks! 
--
"Never EVER mess with a jumper you don’t know about, even if it’s labeled ‘sex and free beer’." - Dave Haynie |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Well you have all these anti telco freaks on here preaching muni is the answer for everything. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | GoogleFi is not MuniFi any more than FIOS is municable |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | They will be when they open shop in San Francisco. If they can't provide Mt. View with decent service, they'll have fun in San Francisco. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | yeah, Mountain view is fairly flat... they just have the sites too far apart for decent use.
I used MetroFi when I was in Sunnyvale, and wasn't impressed, but then again it was ad driven, proxied and not as reliable as dialup. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to ninjatutle
no...muni is muni provided...muni assets, muni employees, muni billed, etc....
public/private venture is different. Leasing city poles/r.o.w. does not make one a muni provider.
MetroFi is not muni wifi. Earthlink in Philly is not muni-fi. Utopia in Utah is not muni broadband really as they can't provide any retail services. Muni infrastructure owner yes, but not muni broadband. Want examples of the real deal, try Thomasville, GA or Kutztown, PA.
This is just a continuing misnomer pushed by an uneducated press. This is as backwards as the FCC calling everything over 200k "broadband." |
|
