It looks Obvious - Latest Comments in Wireless Philadelphia

Re: Wireless Philadelphia

Rogel — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:18:12 -0000

I think it is bad any way. this is a monopoly de facto since the city fund this by tax money and can afford to "offer" the service for lower prices.
The idea of business run by the governmant is, by its nature, monopoly. Many countries found that state own business is very bad idea, I just wonder why are we going back to this idea?

Re: Wireless Philadelphia

Christopher Monnier — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:38:59 -0000

What I'm wondering about the Philadelphia plan is whether Earthlink was granted a monopoly or not. If Earthlink just agreed to cover the city thinking they could make money off of it and struck a deal with the city to use their streetlights and power, I suppose that's not that bad. But if Earthlink was granted a monopoly by the city (which would prevent someone like Verizon from building an independent, competing citywide network), then that's a bad plan.

Re: Wireless Philadelphia

Rogel — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:43:39 -0000

Thanks. It is obvious that the government was outsourcing aspects of the projects to vendors, Yet my point about governmental monopoly still standing.
As much as I think about the wireless project and the "lower economic classes" the points made in the project justification document seems more ridiculous. Nobody addressed the simple fact that there is nothing wrong with dial-up unless you need to download movies...

Re: Wireless Philadelphia

E. Smith — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:31:54 -0000

Good points, but Earthlink will be responsible for most of the cost to "roll out" the project.

The impact on the "lower economic classes" is yet to be seen, but that aspect of this project more than likely will be left in the hands of the people (i.e. community organizations, local service groups, schools,and neighborhood groups).