Wireless in the city of brotherly love
There is a question here about whether the competition is fair when the government has advantages of borrowing money, owning and perhaps giving away real estate access, regulating and taxing us. If you are in a position where you can regulate and tax your competitor, it certainly gives you an advantage. That is a whole fairness question that I think ought to be worked through and thought about.
Eric Rabe of American ISP giant Verizon cries unfair as Philadelphia sets up a low cost wireless internet covering the entire city in a joint venture between the public and private sectors. Providing internet access for $10 or $20 depending on income didn’t come to the liking of the giants used to charge $45-60. The actions aimed at bridging the digital divide in American society have set the wheels of legislative manipulation in motion; the ISP industry have managed to buy politicians and pass laws banning local government from making internet generally accessible. Unlike many American cities the good people of Verizon “think the market has done a good job of addressing the issue [digital divide and public internet access] already”. So the reason the ISP industry’s trying to ban other cities from doing what Philly just did is because they don’t want the cities to waste their money? What? Something’s wrong here. That doesn’t sound like the Capital I know!
Stupidity rules the fair competition-mongers, ok?