On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 13:42 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:28 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Mike Schwartz wrote: > > > > > > > [4] "[...] the municipal Wi-Fi market isn't dying. [...] But, [...] > > > > "taxpayers have lost so far." " > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mike Schwartz > > > > > > as I've noted on this list before, Muni Wifi was pronounced dead > > > before it was ever even born. 'Taxpayers have lost so far'? And how > > > many complaints do we get on this list about COX service? The last > > > thing the telcos want is a network owned by a regional municipality, > > > and the last thing they want is a low-cost budget option for people > > > who neither want or need a high-speed connection. > > ---- > > Obviously the consumer was the last consideration of Tempe's Muni WiFi > > system and that becomes evident by the failure to launch. It's not that > > conceptually the idea doesn't work but conceptually, it was lacking from > > the word go. The city of Tempe sought only to figure out how to make it > > practical for an independent contractor to operate and left the issues > > of sales to Tempe residents to that contractor. > > As was pointed out on the AZIPA list, the contractor that was chosen > was not even an AZ in-state contractor (as if there were none > available). The way the whole thing proceeded was, at the least, > highly questionable. > > > > > Lessig discussed the last mile and considered it from another point of > > view, one that municipalities can't seem to get their head around...that > > their own investment in the last mile of services made it a much better > > community for everyone and Tempe didn't make an investment, they made it > > a freebee for themselves so that they could use the wireless free > > expecting the citizens to subsidize the costs. It could be said that the > > city of Tempe had it backwards. > > Can we have some names here? Who was in charge of the project? Who > chose the contractor? Who was ultimately responsible for the failure? > Lets not talk in these comfortable vagaries here, behind the facade > of 'government' lies people, and more importantly: culpability. ---- I could ask as I do have some connection to this but it really isn't material as this was clearly an experiment all the way. There seems to be a quick charge to the blame game and you're not really considering that the mechanics of these types of technologies aren't all figured out and some things represent a risk. Ultimately, if a contractor can't make it pay its own way, they'll probably end up selling it back to the city of Tempe because they have a need to keep the system up and running. Craig --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss