<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: San Francisco&#8217;s MuniFi Mess</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/</link>
	<description>Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:47:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ol' Yeller</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75275</link>
		<dc:creator>Ol' Yeller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75275</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;From a resident:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A SF owned and run utility service?  That&#039;s an absolutely ridiculous idea.  Does the city own the cable network?  The telecom network?  The wireless phone network?  The terrestrial TV network?  You think those services are bad now?  Imagine if the post office took over your phone service?  How about having the same efficiency in the SF WiFi network as the SF owned and run Muni bus/light-rail network?  Packets arriving 70% on-time, often not at all or just plain skipping right by you if the network is busy!!! &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Government exists to protect the downtrodden, re-distribute wealth and regulate - NOT TO OWN AND OPERATE!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From a resident:</p>

<p>A SF owned and run utility service?  That&#8217;s an absolutely ridiculous idea.  Does the city own the cable network?  The telecom network?  The wireless phone network?  The terrestrial TV network?  You think those services are bad now?  Imagine if the post office took over your phone service?  How about having the same efficiency in the SF WiFi network as the SF owned and run Muni bus/light-rail network?  Packets arriving 70% on-time, often not at all or just plain skipping right by you if the network is busy!!! </p>

<p>Government exists to protect the downtrodden, re-distribute wealth and regulate &#8211; NOT TO OWN AND OPERATE!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kimo Crossman</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75273</link>
		<dc:creator>Kimo Crossman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:10:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75273</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Katie&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;You say &quot;But we’re mostly wondering why a publicly-owned network is being investigated after this deal has been done already&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The deal isn&#039;t done. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;While it is true that it was essentially a backroom deal between the mayor and Google - they had to have &#039;window dressing&#039; procedures: these were the RFI and RFP for which the detailed scoring records have been destroyed.  The Barbary Coast is alive and well in San Francisco. :-)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The current status is: ongoing negotiations between the city and the RFP winner Earthlink/Google (surprise).  Earthlink could leave the table and then MetroFi would be the second selection.  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Or the Board of Supervisors might be able to push for a publically owned solution maybe a Fiber First solution like Seattle with spot WiFi coverage where needed.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Katie</p>

<p>You say &#8220;But we’re mostly wondering why a publicly-owned network is being investigated after this deal has been done already&#8221;</p>

<p>The deal isn&#8217;t done. </p>

<p>While it is true that it was essentially a backroom deal between the mayor and Google &#8211; they had to have &#8216;window dressing&#8217; procedures: these were the RFI and RFP for which the detailed scoring records have been destroyed.  The Barbary Coast is alive and well in San Francisco. :-)</p>

<p>The current status is: ongoing negotiations between the city and the RFP winner Earthlink/Google (surprise).  Earthlink could leave the table and then MetroFi would be the second selection.  </p>

<p>Or the Board of Supervisors might be able to push for a publically owned solution maybe a Fiber First solution like Seattle with spot WiFi coverage where needed.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graydon</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75271</link>
		<dc:creator>Graydon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75271</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Just a note&#8230; a 360 turn puts you going in the same direction as you originally were.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;180 goes the opposite direction&#8230;
90 and 270 would be right / left or left / right turns&#8230;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But, I guess you can define your own coordinate system if you&#039;d like.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a note&#8230; a 360 turn puts you going in the same direction as you originally were.</p>

<p>180 goes the opposite direction&#8230;
90 and 270 would be right / left or left / right turns&#8230;</p>

<p>But, I guess you can define your own coordinate system if you&#8217;d like.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75269</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75269</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;As a former San Francisco resident and property owner, I must admit that I am SHOCKED that this is going on. Imagine petty politics getting in the way of progress in San Francisco. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a former San Francisco resident and property owner, I must admit that I am SHOCKED that this is going on. Imagine petty politics getting in the way of progress in San Francisco. </p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SFGary</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75267</link>
		<dc:creator>SFGary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/san-francisco-munifi/#comment-75267</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This type of foolishness is common in SF where the leaders are unable to run the MUNI on time, keep the roads fixed and the city clean or solve its major crimes. But they are quite ready to mess around with WiFi. They&#039;ll probably debate this issue as long as it took them to decide on a design for the Bay Bridge - somewhere between 12 to 15 years.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This type of foolishness is common in SF where the leaders are unable to run the MUNI on time, keep the roads fixed and the city clean or solve its major crimes. But they are quite ready to mess around with WiFi. They&#8217;ll probably debate this issue as long as it took them to decide on a design for the Bay Bridge &#8211; somewhere between 12 to 15 years.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
