I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in
limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to
mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city
funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been
William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're
in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local
officials.
Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at
Andrew Gallo wrote:
On 7/21/2014 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:
The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a
- Original Message -
From: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
That's the problem. Copper plant is clearly not the optimal solution
for data communication, but when you really NEED a voice call to go
through -- say, when a major hurricane moves up the coast, taking out
all kinds of
On 7/21/2014 at 9:53 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
|- Original Message -
|There's a messier problem here, that I don't see much coverage of (so
|perhaps I heard it wrong):
|
|Is not Verizon trying to replace *regulated* ILEC copper with
|*unregulated* FiOS VoF?
|
From what I've read in the
On 2014-07-21 16:20, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Strangely enough, it seems like if you actually want faster internet,
you have to move away from the big metro areas. Kansas City, MO/KS,
Chattanooga, TN, Burlington, VT, Wilson, NC, Lafayette, LA, all have
much faster internet than most of the
On 7/21/2014 2:08 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?
Almost forces a what planet question.
Our power comes, some times,
On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in
free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer
1 connection
I don't think municipality is particularly relevant. What is relevant
is offering unfunded,
On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:25 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big
players have any intent of deploying anything
This is exacatly why
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:25 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big
players have any intent of deploying anything
This
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing
On 21 July 2014 18:25, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the
big players have any intent of deploying anything
This is exacatly why ashland
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive
L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in
reducing barriers to entry.
Qwest had a great DSL product that did just this. They
201 - 213 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
