Re: Laptops Tune On, Tune In to Seattle Metro's Transit

John L. Shelton wrote:

The cities aren't doing this for free. They tax their citizens (and > visitors are taxed more than citizens) to provide these allegedly nice > services. Do you really want your cities expanding their budgets and > spending on things that commercial vendors are happy to compete to do? > Perhaps they should go build levees or something that others don't want > to do. > Why is wi-fi on the bus good for citizens who don't ride, or don't have > laptops? For you left-thinkers out there, why are your cities catering > to the wealthier bus riders? Why not free coffee, of value to all bus > riders? (Dallas tried that trick in the 1970s, but people still drove > to work.) > When foreign governments subsidize industry, many of you call it > "dumping" and protest it. But if Seattle does the same thing, again > depriving someone of a job, you call it good. > The only "fair" thing is to allow competition from all providers and for > government to step back and try to do well in the few areas we entrust > to it. If a city prevents competition, the solution isn't letting only > the city compete: it's real competition.

John, it sounds to me you are either a paid mouth piece (lobbyist) for the fixed line providers (LEC or cable company), or employed by Qworst, I'm sorry, I mean Qwest.

SBC is the dominate carrier in Michigan and yet we are not getting wireless internet access here. They are doing their best to ensure their paid employees in Lansing (state capital & if your not understanding that, I am talking about the politicians) pass laws stopping local governments from giving us wireless access. Now had a private commercial enterprise came in and did one I wouldn't care if they did or not. But you see, Oakland County (one of the top ten in wealth in the US), where I live, wants to provide wireless access to residents and business' no matter who they are, what they do, where they live. You see, the county executive wants to empower the under privileged and knows that you need those with the money to do it. His plan is to wire the entire county so that rates for those that don't make the big bucks will not cause them to choose between paying rent, buying food or using the internet to help them improve their lot in life.

In a capitalistic society business should be the ones to do these things, but SBC is to busy trying to take cable company's video customers (as well as paying for AT&T so they can expand their monopoly) to spend the money now for wireless access here. Yes, my tax dollars are going to be used for this endeavor, but seeing as no one else is stepping up to the plate I think the county executive is going to hit a home run for the fans. In the end the price charged for this access will pay for the installation and operations with the added bonus of forcing Comcrap, there I go again, Comcast, and SBC to reduce the inflated rates they now charge for DSL and cable modems.

Chip Cryderman

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SBC is the dominant carrier here in rural southeast Kansas as well, and they have made it plain to the government authorities here (meaning city and county officials in the four county southeast corner of Kansas) that they better not try to 'pull' another 'Independence deal' on them where we (a) got an independent telco (Prairie Stream) available and (b) City Hall was thinking seriously about municipal wi-fi connected through CableOne (our local cable company) for Independence. SBC was 'asleep at the switch' -- the best way to phrase it -- when Prairie Stream went into business; SBC has stated they will allow no other entity to get away with that. They (SBC) laughed and said 'Prairie Stream wants to play like a telephone company, so let them try.' Now that Prairie Stream has a few thousand customers here in Kansas and has the Commission's blessings pretty much in whatever they do, SBC is blinking and saying 'well, damned if those people are going to take over all our business.' SBC has promised to sue us if the muni wi-fi plan goes any further and I am sure they will do just that. SBC also brought up that old, lame excuse about how 'city government should not be in the utility business' but they backed off from that a little when it was pointed out that Coffeyville has had municipal electric service for about a hundred years with no ill-effects. Coffeyville Light and Power has done okay, but don't pass the message on to SBC, please. PAT]
Reply to
Charles Cryderman
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.