🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43lgrh$fdj@giga.bga.com>, bladex@bga.com (David Smith) wrote:

>Uh...........are you talking about the fiber optic network proposal?
>
>If a city or public network carried the conduit, then they would be 
>expressly forbidden from making content based decisions.  Rather than 
>being too close to censorship opportunities, a public fiber optic network 
>is the farthest away from censorship one could get.
>
>Or at least, relative to say a Time Warner owned equivalent network.
>
>
>--
>David Smith                 * Next EFF-Austin General Meeting : Mon Sept 18


Dave:

No, I'm not talking about the "fibber" network.  I'm talking about
the"Austin FreeNet" initiative that Sue Beckwith (a City employee) is
devoting (apparently) full time to.  The Austin FreeNet is "designed" to
provide free internet access to the "citizens" of Austin via some sort of
undefined dial-up configuration.

I applaud the "City's" concern for the internet disenfranchised, but I
think that taxpayer dollars could be better spent on higher proirity
issues.  Right now there are plenty of internet providers with the will
and competitive energy to make internet access avaliable to the citizens
of Austin at a cheaper cost to taxpayers than a City-operated "free"
service.

Byrnes out....

-- 
Mike Byrnes
mbyrnes@tpoint.net