more on more on San Francisco receives more than 24 Wi-Fi bids

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Glenn Fleishman <glenn () glennf com>
Date: October 4, 2005 2:11:57 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on San Francisco receives more than 24 Wi-Fi bids


Kenneth_Mayer () Dell com on 10/4/05 at 2:05 PM wrote:

> Dave, something that occurred to  me as we move towards a society of
> open wi-fi within the cities. What are they going to consider with
> blocking inappropriate stuff?  Everyone is going to ask? Who will  
> govern
> this and decide what is good and what is not? Also, what happens when
> someone starts to down load torrents on their laptop, the speeds they
> are talking about are a lot faster than dial up? Anyone know of
> anything?

The big issue is how the contract is written and what entity is  
actually operating and in charge of the network. Before Philadelphia,  
most municipal networks weren't arm's length: as far as I can tell,  
fiber and wireless alike were being built as city/town projects with  
sometimes private vendors doing the initial contracting and sometimes  
ongoing maintenance.

But Philadelphia wasn't just a watershed for understanding the  
incumbents' action: it was also a watershed for the change of terms.  
Instead of "taxpayer money" being put at risk for a percentage of  
citizens (you know, unlike all other city services which have to  
benefit 100 percent of citizens) private contractors or non-profits  
were being told they would have take the risk. Post-Philly, it's  
almost all entirely private company risk on the money side.

That also shifts the issue of who operates the network. If EarthLink  
operates the Wireless Philadelphia network, is the non-profit in  
charge? EarthLink? In San Francisco, I'm not sure it's clearer: does  
the winning bidder operate unfettered within parameters of providing  
service under a quasi-franchise agreement?

It'll be interested in contracts are sunlit so that we can tell where  
censorship ends. If EarthLink contractually assumes 100 percent of  
operational risk and parameters in Philadelphia and then filters some  
kind of content, I would assume that a court wouldn't find  
Philadelphia had censored that content. But you never know.
--
Glenn Fleishman
seattle . washington
unsolicited pundit . glennf.com
columnist . seattletimes.com/practicalmac
daily wireless networking news . wifinetnews.com


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/