 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
1 edit | WAKE UP! May the politicians finally get a clue!!!
It doesn't matter what side of the muni card you're on. The gov's should not be blocking a local community's right to serve itself if the private sector isn't interested for whatever reason. If it doesn't make sense from Verizon's point of view to run FTTH in PA, don't block somebody that wants to do so. | |
| vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | So whens the ban on state funds for Football Stadiums coming since its essentially the same thing? | |
|  | 
Sefirato
Turambar, Master of Fate
Premium
join:2002-05-08
Anchorage, AK
| Re: So whens the ban on state funds for WiFi in a football stadium? Who would be that stupid enough to bring a laptop or a PDA to a venue like that, other than broadcasters and owners? I don't think this is going to be successful in any way due to the rowdiness of the fans nowadays.
However, for the city-wide Wi-Fi, I supported the Philly's momentum to get this nice dream to come true as I'm a native of the city, but what else is new, the legislators never liked the city anyway. | |
| | | | | | 
59678178
Tom Native New Yorker
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Marietta, GA
1 edit | said by Sefirato  :WiFi in a football stadium? Who would be that stupid enough to bring a laptop or a PDA to a venue like that, It would sure be nice to get on a wireless pda and type "I am in section 121, Row G Seat #2 and I want to have 2 cold beers delivered" 
--
If it offends you, it MUST be true! | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by vic102482 :Football Stadiums coming since its essentially the same thing? You're absolutely right. Governments in Pennsylvania have already wasted close to $2 Billion on new stadiums for various teams. Considering all the financial problems that Philadelphia is having, that money could have been put to a much better use.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| spepper
join:2003-11-09
USA
| "BIG" telecoms ah ha-- so the telecom "mafia" such as Verizon doesn't like it when local governments like the fine City of Philadelphia shows iniative for providing free (or low cost) high speed wireless internet access-- don't "they" realize that by opposing such efforts, they are creating even more backlash against "their type" ("big" telecoms)? They should be embracing such efforts by "small" (local) entities such as cities, towns, etc, NOT opposing them-- can't we all just get along, in cyberspace? | |
| | mstrlogcrw
join:2002-11-23
Granada Hills, CA | Re: "BIG" telecoms Shouldn't cities be focusing on taking care of all their other budgetary problems before introducing city-wide wifi? Not to mention the security nightmare. Egad! | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| 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
| Re: "BIG" telecoms 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
| Re: "BIG" telecoms 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 | ....ah yes, they would PARK that car and charge anyone through the nose to "ride" in it! | |
| 
Peter Lee
| Look at the Language of the "Grandfather" Clause In the Infoworld article mentioned above, Verizon and the chief of staff of the state senator who bid his daddy's bidding both claim that a so-called grandfather clause in the bill would protect any service in operation as of January 1, 2006, the effective date of the ban. The chief of staff even says that a service would only need one paying subscriber by that time to grandfathered in.
Setting aside the question of how much weight a court would give to the opinion of a legislative staff member when interpreting the law - answer: none - take a look at the plain language of the grandfather clause:
....
(3) The prohibition in Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to preclude the continued provision or offering of telecommunications services by a political subdivision of the same type and SCOPE as were being provided on the effective date of this section.
....
Notice how the crafty addition of the word "scope" means that if Philly is offering wi-fi to one resident as of January 1, 2006, it can continue to offer service to that one resident BUT NO OTHERS. If this bill is signed by Governor Rendell, Philly would have to blanket the entire city in little more than a year in order to be able to meet its goal of offering wi-fi service to every resident. I doubt it can meet that deadline. | |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Will it get buried in the holiday news slump? If Pennsylvania's Governor is going to sign Verizon's muni Wi-Fi ban, expect it to get buried in the Thanksgiving news slump. There are several opportunities--either late yesterday (day before T-day), today (T-day), or Friday or Saturday.
With those dates, it becomes an inside story in a paper focusing on parades, new balloons in the parades, or shopping stories--either "better than ever" or "still depressed".
If, on the other hand, the Gov. is going to veto the bill, he'll do it for maximum media effect, with the result in the papers early next week.
I read in one source that he has until Nov. 30 (Tuesday) to act on it, but I'm not certain of that date.
The rationale is simple--Verizon will know either way, but he either wants the public to know about it or not, depending on whether he defends or screws them. If he hasn't acted by Monday, it's probably good news for the munis.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | |
|
|
Muni Bans Get Attention
