From: Glenn Fleishman <glenn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 19, 2004 6:40:24 AM PST
To: dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Philly and blocking its network
I don't mean to sound like an apologist for cable and telco vested
interests, but the reporter on the story didn't actually look at the
text of the bill from its introduction to present. He quotes various
people stating the bill didn't change as a result of Philadelphia's
plan.
I did five minutes of research and found that that was correct -- so
the
vested interests have been working on this for some time, not in
reaction to Philly Wi-Fi. I think it's an important point.
<http://wifinetnews.com/archives/004465.html>
In the Champaign-Urbana area, there has been direct lobbying by the
incumbent broadband providers to fight municipal Internet deployment,
but Verizon and Comcast here seem to be working on a longer-term plan.
It means that these entrenched interests would like to continue to be
entrenched.
Broadband appears to be most robust--not just competitively priced, but
widely available--whenever alternatives exist in the market. This
should
be obvious, but the places in which monopoly allows them to charge more
than a competitive environment would, the broadband providers don't
seem
to be interested in building out the market. I guess that's just the
nature of business these days.
--
Glenn Fleishman
seattle, washington
work and home: glennf.com
wireless data news: wifinetnews.com