Comments on: No WiFi For You San Francisco, Vote Your Supervisors Out of Office on November 7th http://thomashawk.com/2006/10/no-wifi-for-you-san-francisco-vote.html Sat, 26 May 2012 02:31:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Eric Dynamic http://thomashawk.com/2006/10/no-wifi-for-you-san-francisco-vote.html/comment-page-1#comment-11671 Eric Dynamic Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:38:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1710#comment-11671 Here we are five months later. It's revealed that Thomas Hawk wishes to throw out the Supervisors for wishing to give you a gigabit fiber connection instead of a free 300 kilobit wifi connection.<br /><br />No, vote people out of office for failing to give you horsehockey just because you want it and it's free. Forget about the alternatives ...<br /><br />me, I'll take the fiber over assisting Google with anything ever, any day. Here we are five months later. It’s revealed that Thomas Hawk wishes to throw out the Supervisors for wishing to give you a gigabit fiber connection instead of a free 300 kilobit wifi connection.

No, vote people out of office for failing to give you horsehockey just because you want it and it’s free. Forget about the alternatives …

me, I’ll take the fiber over assisting Google with anything ever, any day.

]]> By: Kimo C http://thomashawk.com/2006/10/no-wifi-for-you-san-francisco-vote.html/comment-page-1#comment-11672 Kimo C Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:08:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1710#comment-11672 You should be blaming the Mayor who did a backroom deal with Google and then did no needs analysis or community buy-in before starting the RFI/RFP process.<br /><br />At the RFI process Google submitted a 100 page response with 90 of the pages completly readacted/blacked out.<br /><br />The City has had 6 public hearing on these issue so far and while other vendors have attended - neither Google or Earthlink have shown up.<br /><br />The RFP was basically written for Google. Yet, during the RFP process the city apparently destroyed the individual RFP ratings - only providing aggregate values and refused to provide the resumes of the people who performed the reviews.<br /><br />See the weekly update of negotiation status here:<br />http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_index.asp?id=40515<br /><br />The promise of Universal free wifi was mainly to help the disadvantaged yet now they are being offered 300k best effort - if you got it fine, if not, oh well, and we see in general it's spotty indoor coverage.<br /><br />You have a laptop probably many others don't. And nonetheless even people with laptops in cities that have rolled this out (not really proven on a large scale) haven't generally cancelled their wired access at home or work. Most people want a reliable indoor connection.<br /><br />In exchange, Earthlink gets access to all the city light poles and buildings for near automatic renewals for up to 16 years.<br /><br />Our Comcast agreement was only renewed for 4 years.<br /><br />Google's giving Mtn Vw 1000k and didn't commit to any of the now special privacy protections until SF started making making a stink.<br /><br />San Fancisco should continue to negotiate the best deal for the citizens and complete it's Fiber and City owned studies before initiating any Franchise agreements with Earthlink. You should be blaming the Mayor who did a backroom deal with Google and then did no needs analysis or community buy-in before starting the RFI/RFP process.

At the RFI process Google submitted a 100 page response with 90 of the pages completly readacted/blacked out.

The City has had 6 public hearing on these issue so far and while other vendors have attended – neither Google or Earthlink have shown up.

The RFP was basically written for Google. Yet, during the RFP process the city apparently destroyed the individual RFP ratings – only providing aggregate values and refused to provide the resumes of the people who performed the reviews.

See the weekly update of negotiation status here:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_index.asp?id=40515

The promise of Universal free wifi was mainly to help the disadvantaged yet now they are being offered 300k best effort – if you got it fine, if not, oh well, and we see in general it’s spotty indoor coverage.

You have a laptop probably many others don’t. And nonetheless even people with laptops in cities that have rolled this out (not really proven on a large scale) haven’t generally cancelled their wired access at home or work. Most people want a reliable indoor connection.

In exchange, Earthlink gets access to all the city light poles and buildings for near automatic renewals for up to 16 years.

Our Comcast agreement was only renewed for 4 years.

Google’s giving Mtn Vw 1000k and didn’t commit to any of the now special privacy protections until SF started making making a stink.

San Fancisco should continue to negotiate the best deal for the citizens and complete it’s Fiber and City owned studies before initiating any Franchise agreements with Earthlink.

]]> By: Albert http://thomashawk.com/2006/10/no-wifi-for-you-san-francisco-vote.html/comment-page-1#comment-11673 Albert Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:24:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1710#comment-11673 Thomas,<br /><br />Your headline to this post makes it seem like the WiFi project has been cancelled. But after reading your posted article, you don't mention any reasons why you think San Fran won't be getting WiFi. <br /><br />Is this just a prediction of yours, or is the process just taking longer than originally expected? Thomas,

Your headline to this post makes it seem like the WiFi project has been cancelled. But after reading your posted article, you don’t mention any reasons why you think San Fran won’t be getting WiFi.

Is this just a prediction of yours, or is the process just taking longer than originally expected?

]]> By: John Dowdell http://thomashawk.com/2006/10/no-wifi-for-you-san-francisco-vote.html/comment-page-1#comment-11674 John Dowdell Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:34:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1710#comment-11674 Hey, obstructionism is a valid occupational pursuit... ;-)<br /><br />(Seriously, if there's interest among varied parties in having getting some work done, and if it needs to pass through a political process before it can be finished, then anyone with sufficiently low ethics can threaten to obstruct it and collect a payoff. That's the way San Francisco politics works. They're speaking power to truth.) Hey, obstructionism is a valid occupational pursuit… ;-)

(Seriously, if there’s interest among varied parties in having getting some work done, and if it needs to pass through a political process before it can be finished, then anyone with sufficiently low ethics can threaten to obstruct it and collect a payoff. That’s the way San Francisco politics works. They’re speaking power to truth.)

]]>