Dear Editor,

The Wi-Fi debate is missing an important point the reason EarthLink failed is because Wi-Fi is a poor technology for providing Internet access in the home. Cable and DSL are already omnipresent in the city, provide better bandwidth, and don't cost any more than the EarthLink Wi-Fi service. If you want wireless in your own house, you can go to Fry's and buy your own private access point for $20. EarthLink never had anything to offer home users.

The place where Wi-Fi shines is when people are away from home restaurants, coffee shops, shopping malls, parks, libraries, bus stops, and other public places. Yes, EarthLink covered those areas too, but people who use the Internet on the road are already paying for an Internet connection at home and most of them weren't willing to pay twice. Add to that the fact that, even if you did pay for EarthLink, it quit working the moment you left the city, and the EarthLink service just didn't make sense to consumers.

This is why an advertising supported network that's free to the end user is the right answer for public Wi-Fi. No, it's not going to be a pot of gold for anyone, and I agree with the Post's editorial last week that the city is poorly suited to run such a service. But many communities, some of them right next door to us, have successfully partnered with private companies to provide a metro Wi-Fi network exactly as I've described. I think we should be asking our city council why Milpitas, after

installing two citywide networks so far, can't do the same.

Bob Armstrong

Fallen Leaf Drive