Support NeoGAF

[DarienA]

any other town in PA that wants to do it has to get permission from Verizon first.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/12/01/wireless.philly.ap/index.html

Crazy.

 

[bionic77]

any other town in PA that wants to do it has to get permission from Verizon first.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/12/01/wireless.philly.ap/index.html

Crazy.

Why the hell do they need Verizon's permission?

 

[DarienA]

Why the hell do they need Verizon's permission?

IIRC Verizon sued Philly or announced intentions to sue... after Philly announced their Wi Fi plans saying it would hurt Verizons business or something like that.

Under the Pennsylvania legislation, any political subdivision, such as a city, after January 1, 2006, would have to get the permission of the local telephone company to provide a telecommunications service for a fee, including broadband Internet. If the company rejects the plan, it would have to offer a similar service within 14 months.

That doesn't sound TOO bad...

Back up a bit for details:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19912

 

[teiresias]

What exactly would be the point of the company rejecting the government's plan to offer a free service, if that means the company would have to provide a free service later on, costing them revenue - unless they'll make the service so dreadfully restrictive or slow that no one will want to use it anyway.

 

[ManDudeChild]

IIRC Verizon sued Philly or announced intentions to sue... after Philly announced their Wi Fi plans saying it would hurt Verizons business or something like that.



That doesn't sound TOO bad...

I'm probably missing a huge piece of the story, but how exactly is hurting business grounds to sue? I mean the way you've worded it, it sounds like they're suing because Philly's competiton, and free. People would still pay for Verizon if the service is superior to the government one after all. Well those that could afford it.

 

[Nerevar]

What exactly would be the point of the company rejecting the government's plan to offer a free service, if that means the company would have to provide a free service later on, costing them revenue - unless they'll make the service so dreadfully restrictive or slow that no one will want to use it anyway.

uh, the legislation says "similar service". So if the county wants to offer free wi-fi, the telecom can say "no" so long as they put up a wifi service of their own, even if it's a pay-for-use service.

I'm probably missing a huge piece of the story, but how exactly is hurting business grounds to sue? I mean the way you've worded it, it sounds like they're suing because Philly's competiton, and free. People would still pay for Verizon if the service is superior to the government one after all. Well those that could afford it.

Apparently it's illegal for the county to offer any telecom services without permission from the local telecom company. It's crazy, but it makes sense in a roundabout, hurt-the-consumer-but-protect-jobs sort of way.

 

[DarienA]

I'm probably missing a huge piece of the story, but how exactly is hurting business grounds to sue? I mean the way you've worded it, it sounds like they're suing because Philly's competiton, and free. People would still pay for Verizon if the service is superior to the government one after all. Well those that could afford it.

Let me try to find the article that shows the initial Verizon whining.

EDIT: Ah what Nerevar said, but I'll still look for the full article.

Here's one:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/11/23/philadelphia/index.php

 

[FortNinety]

Jesus fuck Verizon sucks. I know they have the best cell phone service, but I still flat out refuse to deal with the devil.

 

[Memles]

I'd be scared...they probably hired Darth Vader to be their enforcer.

 

[NLB2]

I love living in a democracy that supports a free market. Yeah, shit like that makes me really bitter.

 

[teiresias]

h, the legislation says "similar service". So if the county wants to offer free wi-fi, the telecom can say "no" so long as they put up a wifi service of their own, even if it's a pay-for-use service.

Yes, but in Philly, they're still talking about charging $15 - $25 per month for the city-wide service. If some local government came up with a plan to offer free wi-fi to its residents for $5 per month, in order for the verizon plan to be similar would it not have to have similar pricing?

 

[Phoenix]

What exactly would be the point of the company rejecting the government's plan to offer a free service, if that means the company would have to provide a free service later on, costing them revenue - unless they'll make the service so dreadfully restrictive or slow that no one will want to use it anyway.

Because the service wouldn't be free. Its going to cost someone millions of dollars to put up the towers and maintain the system. Either the citizens will pay for that in a tax of some sort, or the citizens (via the government) can pay Verizon for that service. Either way - someone is going to have to pay for it.

 

[FortNinety]

I'd be scared...they probably hired Darth Vader to be their enforcer.

Ummm.... dude, they already did.