Art, the city is allowing any other bidders on same principle as you have been awarded your commission — a principle of the payback!

These stories on WI-FI and networks being built in other cities are written in a way as to appear that the service, the use of the network will be “free”

If there are complaints about the cities allowed monopoly(sp) in the cable (TV) area. Why would a city allowed monopoly(sp) in the WI-FI be good?

Actually, I asked Thomas to write this post, but when he did not do it I decided to write it instead. I am glad he shared his research with us. However, the fact is Earthlink is not the only wi-fi provider in the U.S. I am sure that Thomas did not intend to leave you with that impression.

Secondly, there has been no word of Google being involved in the Santa Ana wi-fi network. Nor was Google involved in the Anaheim deal, which at $25 a month was no bargain, particularly compared to free wi-fi access.

My concern remains a valid one. Why did Earthlink hire Jeff Flint to rep them in Anaheim if they did not intend to have him lure his buddy Pringle into a suspect deal?

Secondly, are Santa Ana officials talking to Earthlink because of the Pringle-Pulido connection? Is the city even allowing any other bidders to get involved?

Thank you for the factual info.

Perhaps Art will learn from your example and learn to do research instead of just talking out of his behind with another diatribe against whoever is on his s–t list.

The Europe is abandoning this idea because of its interference with short wave and citizen band RF signals.
Since Edison company owns electric wire grid in USA over which the Wi-Fi is distributed it is pushing this bad idea.

Santa Ana should stay away from it.