On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Michael Stearne wrote: > > 1) This will complete destruction of independent ISPs - one of major > > reasons why we get customers is because we are not the incumbent cable > > or phone company. > > This may complete the destruction but aren't you blaming the destruction > of the market on the people putting the final nail in the coffin? > Didn't the majority of the destruction come from AOL, phone and cable > companies and now you are defend Verizon who took more of your business > than muni wifi will? AOL was never really a source of destruction - competition was fair. Destruction came after monopolies came into it.
Yes, I think adding a free city-owned monopoly wireless provider *is* a final nail in the coffin. Stick to city providing wireless transport service to all comers, who then can provide end-user service, and I'll be fine with that. > > 2) At towns with for-fee municipal broadband and independent ISPs - > > essentially, my taxes are being used to compete with me. Doesn't > > anyone think that this is wrong? > > In that case, yes. But I think municipal access should be free for > citizens. Private companies can add features to gain subscribers. You > are saying that if a city gave a Yugo to each citizen, BMW would go out > of business in that city. I don't believe this. Where does this end? Should city provide free food to everyone? Surely, that won't put McDonalds or Smith&Wollensky out of business. Just because *you* have a great idea to spend *my* tax money on does not make it good. And if you are talking about 'benefit to society' - you are very much wrong. If it is in society's interest to help the needy connect to internet *at their home* (note, they can already get internet at libraries) - give them "wifi stamps" (analogous to food stamps) with which they can purchase the internet service from anyone they want. Wireless or not. If it is in society's interest to run a wireless network (reducing the number of unsightly towers), then make city open the network to all ISPs, and sell "transport" service. ISPs then will be able to provide complete end-user service. > > 3) Your analogy with library is specious. There is a difference between > > book you own and book you borrowed - you can't enjoy book you have > > borrowed forever. > > Muni Wifi would be borrowed, if the person wants to buy the book, they > can buy it from you. See, you are still not getting it. a) There's no difference between borrowed wifi and bought wifi. b) There's a difference between borrowed book and bought book. c) Thus, you are not providing a free library, you are providing free lunch. Sure, providing free lunch isn't going to run McDonalds out of business, but is it a good idea? > > 4) More correct analogy would be cities running soup kitchens and > > serving food to citizens, ones who can and can't afford food alike. > > That would doubtless be an honorable thing, however, not something > > that is considered reasonable in this country. > > Soup kitchens DO serve food to people that can afford it as well as > people that can't. Why don't people who can afford food go to soup > kitchens? Since you apparently don't know: Soup kitchens are not run by the cities. They are ran by non-profits who may (and lately don't) get *part* of funding from cities to feed the hungry. Most of the funding is from voluntary donations. > > 5) If cities want to help deployment of wireless broadband, they should > > not fight the building of wireless towers. > > I don't think its "cities" that fight the building, its the citizens in > those cities. The politic ans are only doing what their constituency > wants. Do you think the constituency wanted Verizon to pass a bill in > Pennsylvania limited what their city officials can do? (e.g. Muni Wifi > if the citizens wanted it) Do you think constituency had any clue what that is? If they did have a clue, do you think they have enough of understanding to reject 'free lunch'? If tomorrow some municipality decides to provide 1000$ to each resident, do you think the residents would complain? Do you think that its a good idea? Do you think that state should be able to preempt a city from following up on a stupid idea? State powers are best excercised in preempting local opposition to building towers, not by giving *my* money to other companies so they can better compete with me. > > 6) If the concern is about poor people not being able to afford internet, > > provide monetary contribution to them, so they can buy access from anyone > > else. Or not buy, if the intarweb isn't their thing. But, preserve the > > choice of providers. > > There will always be a choice of providers as long as there is a > profitable business for people to be in. Capitalism is about adapting > to market conditions. Think of all the business opportunities there > will be if you are assured of ubiquitous Wifi in a given area. There > can be applications there far bigger than what you can make as an ISP. So, you are essentially saying that instead of being an ISP, I should do something else? In other words, you want to take my tax money and kill my existing business, and advising me to do something else instead? Nice. -- Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601 Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
