Hell, that's nothing. We now have *competing* pork here in SF - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041022/80/f52ip.html
Looks like Ammiano and Newsom are going head to head on broadband. Frankly, I think both of them are whacked, although Ammiano slightly more for proposing such an 80's style broadband plan of fibre to the home. At the end of the day, if people want city-wide wireless broadband the free market will provide it. There's no reason for the City of SF to pony up money (that they don't even have) for such a risky venture. If they could even complete one of these projects in 5 yrs, and/or less than double over-budget it would be amazing. Meanwhile 3G, Wimax and other private solutions will come online and make it a duplicate effort at best. David BTW - I see BARWN is averaging 2 users a day for the past year on the main node. Not a good example of high demand for free wireless IMHO.. >I dunno if the SF project is pork, but this one sure looks like it: >http://news.com.com/The+Texas+broadband+follies/2010-1028_3-5416297.html >- -ken >- --------- >On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:15:39AM -0700, Art McGee wrote: >> [Comments?--Art] >> >> http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2004-10-13/news/smith.html >> >> SF Weekly _______________________________________________ BAWUG's general wireless chat mailing list [unsubscribe] http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
