Philadelphia Approves Contract For City-Wide Wireless Internet
I see that Philadelphia has approved a contract with Earthlink to provide city-wide wireless internet.
Personally, I think this is a mistake. It would not be something I'd support in my area.
With this contract the City of Philadelphia is essentially giving Earthlink a monopoly on internet service in the city. It will be tough for other internet service providers to compete. After all, what citizen (outside of certain power users who may want to pay for a higher performance connection to the internet) will want to pay for internet if they can get it for "free" (though it is costing them tax dollars)? To me anything that reduces the amount of competition in the marketplace also reduces the overall quality of the product being provided to the public.
My hometown, like a lot of cities, has a contract similar to this one with a cable television provider (Midcontinent). The service we get from that provider is awful (I don't personally have cable but I've observed problems my friends and family have had). Their billing is often wrong, and their customer service is less than adequate. Scheduling a technician to come to your home for installation or maintenance is almost like trying to get an audience with the President. The last time my parents requested a technician they were told that someone would be at their home "between 10:00am and 6:00pm."
Why is this service so bad? I think it is because our cable company has no one to compete with. They can get away with less-than-exemplary service because...who are you going to switch to? Things have gotten better since satellite television has become more prominent and accessible, but it is still pretty bad, and I can't imagine the situation with wireless internet is going to be all that different.
Plus, why should the people of Philadelphia who don't have any interest in wireless internet subsidize those who do use it? Doesn't seem very fair to me.
Any time the government gets involved with this stuff they just make things worse. They'd be better off just letting citizens purchase their own internet. They'd get better service and, ultimately, it would probably cost everyone less money.
Personally, I think this is a mistake. It would not be something I'd support in my area.
With this contract the City of Philadelphia is essentially giving Earthlink a monopoly on internet service in the city. It will be tough for other internet service providers to compete. After all, what citizen (outside of certain power users who may want to pay for a higher performance connection to the internet) will want to pay for internet if they can get it for "free" (though it is costing them tax dollars)? To me anything that reduces the amount of competition in the marketplace also reduces the overall quality of the product being provided to the public.
My hometown, like a lot of cities, has a contract similar to this one with a cable television provider (Midcontinent). The service we get from that provider is awful (I don't personally have cable but I've observed problems my friends and family have had). Their billing is often wrong, and their customer service is less than adequate. Scheduling a technician to come to your home for installation or maintenance is almost like trying to get an audience with the President. The last time my parents requested a technician they were told that someone would be at their home "between 10:00am and 6:00pm."
Why is this service so bad? I think it is because our cable company has no one to compete with. They can get away with less-than-exemplary service because...who are you going to switch to? Things have gotten better since satellite television has become more prominent and accessible, but it is still pretty bad, and I can't imagine the situation with wireless internet is going to be all that different.
Plus, why should the people of Philadelphia who don't have any interest in wireless internet subsidize those who do use it? Doesn't seem very fair to me.
Any time the government gets involved with this stuff they just make things worse. They'd be better off just letting citizens purchase their own internet. They'd get better service and, ultimately, it would probably cost everyone less money.
nunez
Craig
realitybasedbob
Carrick
robert108
Sparkie Arbuckle
