On 4/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Rob Kelley wrote: > > > In fact, I'd like to see a state legislature pass a resolution or law > > __affirming__ the right of local municipalities to set up low-cost > > wireless for their citizens. > I will probably be flamed here to hell and back, however, in my opinion, > muni broadband is completely retarded. > > 1) This will complete destruction of independent ISPs - one of major > reasons why we get customers is because we are not the incumbent cable or > phone company.
This may complete the destruction but aren't you blaming the destruction of the market on the people putting the final nail in the coffin? Didn't the majority of the destruction come from AOL, phone and cable companies and now you are defend Verizon who took more of your business than muni wifi will? > > 2) At towns with for-fee municipal broadband and independent ISPs - > essentially, my taxes are being used to compete with me. Doesn't anyone > think that this is wrong? In that case, yes. But I think municipal access should be free for citizens. Private companies can add features to gain subscribers. You are saying that if a city gave a Yugo to each citizen, BMW would go out of business in that city. I don't believe this. > > 3) Your analogy with library is specious. There is a difference between > book you own and book you borrowed - you can't enjoy book you have > borrowed forever. Muni Wifi would be borrowed, if the person wants to buy the book, they can buy it from you. > > 4) More correct analogy would be cities running soup kitchens and serving > food to citizens, ones who can and can't afford food alike. That would > doubtless be an honorable thing, however, not something that is considered > reasonable in this country. Soup kitchens DO serve food to people that can afford it as well as people that can't. Why don't people who can afford food go to soup kitchens? > > 5) If cities want to help deployment of wireless broadband, they should > not fight the building of wireless towers. I don't think its "cities" that fight the building, its the citizens in those cities. The politic ans are only doing what their constituency wants. Do you think the constituency wanted Verizon to pass a bill in Pennsylvania limited what their city officials can do? (e.g. Muni Wifi if the citizens wanted it) > > 6) If the concern is about poor people not being able to afford internet, > provide monetary contribution to them, so they can buy access from anyone > else. Or not buy, if the intarweb isn't their thing. But, preserve the > choice of providers. There will always be a choice of providers as long as there is a profitable business for people to be in. Capitalism is about adapting to market conditions. Think of all the business opportunities there will be if you are assured of ubiquitous Wifi in a given area. There can be applications there far bigger than what you can make as an ISP. Michael -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
