I don't remember the original article, and I can't go back and look without losing context, but I don't recall anyone offering "free" access. And if they're trying to build a service in an area where the other providers WON'T offer service then they're not eliminating competition because the competition wasn't there to begin with.
Or when the private schools don't have to accept low-income or mentally handicapped students, or have to deal with a host of other issues that make the comparison unfair.
John Meissen snipped-for-privacy@aracnet.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A situation like this occurred in Chicago several years ago, when City of Chicago _attempted_ to take over the electric power utility. They said they could handle it so much more effeciently and inexpensively than the historical provider of same, Commonwealth Edison Company. But they were not going to negotiate with anyone, or deal with laws of any sort; they were simply going to -- in polite terms -- 'municipalize' the electric service, which is to say they were going to steal it. It was only when several large corporations threatened to move out of town in self defense if the plans went through and others of influence such as Chicago Tribune called attention to the city's intentions that the city backed off.The Tribune noted "so the gang of cronies and politicians which run our transit atrocity, our housing atrocity, our schools and our parks are now going to be in charge of our nuclear plants as well ....". Mayor Daley blinked at that and after the obligatory defense of the city government decided to back away from the plan. This is not quite the same thing as Seattle's plan for muni wi-fi, but quite similar. PAT]