Joel Jaeggli wrote: > traditional arguement by entrenched monopolists against public-owned > fiber projects.
This was my impression too. Trenches should be good for fibers, but these are of a different kind. Who is this Matt Smith who wrote that article, and how is he connected with the industry interests? >From a European point of view, it is incomprehensible that American cities are so late in building their own fiber infrastructure. This article's talk about "mountains" of tax dollars is ridiculous. Anybody understands that 3 or 400,000 dollars is no money when the city of San Francisco overhauls its network of sewer pipes. The real money is in things like asphalt, bridges and utility pipes. Communication cables is just icing on the cake. No wireless technology can compete with fiber in providing the last mile of broadband Internet connectivity to households and offices in a densely populated city. Mixing this with talk of wireless cell phones is only trying to confuse the issue. Are we talking kilobits or gigabits? Does the journalist know the difference? -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ BAWUG's general wireless chat mailing list [unsubscribe] http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
