<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on more on San Francisco receives more than 24 Wi-Fi bids





Begin forwarded message:

From: Glenn Fleishman <glenn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 4, 2005 2:11:57 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on San Francisco receives more than 24 Wi-Fi bids


Kenneth_Mayer@xxxxxxxx on 10/4/05 at 2:05 PM wrote:

Dave, something that occurred to  me as we move towards a society of
open wi-fi within the cities. What are they going to consider with
blocking inappropriate stuff? Everyone is going to ask? Who will govern
this and decide what is good and what is not? Also, what happens when
someone starts to down load torrents on their laptop, the speeds they
are talking about are a lot faster than dial up? Anyone know of
anything?


The big issue is how the contract is written and what entity is actually operating and in charge of the network. Before Philadelphia, most municipal networks weren't arm's length: as far as I can tell, fiber and wireless alike were being built as city/town projects with sometimes private vendors doing the initial contracting and sometimes ongoing maintenance.

But Philadelphia wasn't just a watershed for understanding the incumbents' action: it was also a watershed for the change of terms. Instead of "taxpayer money" being put at risk for a percentage of citizens (you know, unlike all other city services which have to benefit 100 percent of citizens) private contractors or non-profits were being told they would have take the risk. Post-Philly, it's almost all entirely private company risk on the money side.

That also shifts the issue of who operates the network. If EarthLink operates the Wireless Philadelphia network, is the non-profit in charge? EarthLink? In San Francisco, I'm not sure it's clearer: does the winning bidder operate unfettered within parameters of providing service under a quasi-franchise agreement?

It'll be interested in contracts are sunlit so that we can tell where censorship ends. If EarthLink contractually assumes 100 percent of operational risk and parameters in Philadelphia and then filters some kind of content, I would assume that a court wouldn't find Philadelphia had censored that content. But you never know.
--
Glenn Fleishman
seattle . washington
unsolicited pundit . glennf.com
columnist . seattletimes.com/practicalmac
daily wireless networking news . wifinetnews.com


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/