Subject: [IP] Not all municipal connectivity is "good"
Title: Not all municipal connectivity is "good"
------ Forwarded Message
From: Bob Frankston <Bob19firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:25:25 -0500
To: Dave Farber <email@example.com>
Cc: Gerry Faulhaber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Not all municipal connectivity is "good"
I’m here at http://www.freedom-to-connect.net <http://www.freedom-to-connect.net/> and after listening to a talk on municipal connectivity it’s obvious that while I think of pure connectivity (IP or below) some people are talking about it in terms of being another CableCo but more moral and “for the people”.
I’m strongly in favor of the former but the latter is indeed problematic.
As we discuss these issues we must make a distinction between connectivity as a basic utility and providing services. It’s a little more than that because I’m advocating an opportunistic approach rather than make expensive promises.
The competition with incumbents should come from obviating the need for them to provide common infrastructure but not from trying to replace them as such. It should be possible for them to continue to offer competitive content/service unburdened of the need to provide their own facilities.
As with roads some cities will do a better job than others and we can deal with it the same way.
Bob Frankston http://www.frankston.com <http://www.frankston.com/>
------ End of Forwarded Message
You are subscribed as email@example.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Powered by eList eXpress LLC