From: John Cuccia 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:47:41 -0400, "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote:

>
>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>news:6nqta1t5is9hkuem4meqeg1mc9m1frois4{at}4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:58:37 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:
>>
>>>As long as you understand that what you're saying is that what they're
>>>undertaking is not a feasible direction to take.
>>
>> It isn't feasible for a private corporation that needs to produce
>> profits *now*.  For a government not driven by that imperative (think
>> long-term bond financing), it is feasible.
>>
>>>What you're saying in
>>>effect is that you'd rather the local government committed to
higher taxes
>>>to supply something that isn't really feasible,
>>
>> My government isn't raising taxes.  If the local utilities fiber
>> initiative is approved by the citizenry in July, they will start with
>> a pilot.  If the pilot service is adopted at a rate covers expenses,
>> they will proceed, otherwise, they will not.
>>
>
>
>In our adjacent county the state Republicans are doing battle with the
>county executive ( a Republican) to stop the attempt to make Oakland county
>completely wireless.  It's a rather bold plan. In exchange for providing
>free access, the county would allow private Internet companies to transmit
>free from government structures.

Our local government has approached both Bellsouth and Cox Cable about a
public/private partnership using the city's proposed FTTH network, but both
have refused to discuss such a thing.  They are only interested in
maintaining their monopolies.
>
>http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0506/14/B04-214447.htm
>Patterson, who appeared agitated at a hastily called press conference Monday
>afternoon at his county offices, said attempts by state Rep. Mike Nofs,
>R-Battle Creek, to impose a moratorium on all wireless expansion across the
>state are mean-spirited. "I can't understand why he would do this,"
>Patterson said. "As we try to restore our (state) economy, a prescription
>for disaster would be to put a moratorium on wireless in Oakland County."
>
>Nofs told MIRS news service that Patterson's proposal is "an
>anti-competitive concept that gets local government too deeply into the
>private sector."
>
>In April Patterson laid out his vision to make Oakland County completely
>wireless by 2006 to attract more business to the county, enhance its
>residential character and create a mobile work force.
>
>Patterson vows that no taxpayer money will pay for the wireless system.
>Wireless technology experts and service providers agree that the technology
>exists to build a system that covers Oakland's 910 square miles but estimate
>it will cost in the range of $50 million to $100 million to build.
>
>County leaders propose partnering with private technology firms to build the
>network using some 2,400 publicly owned access points, such as traffic
>lights and telephone poles, and have it in place by mid-2006. If successful,
>Oakland County would be the first wireless county in the nation.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5