<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More details on Swindon, UK citywide Wi-Fi service</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.muniwireless.com/2009/12/16/more-details-on-swindon-uk-citywide-wifi-service/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.muniwireless.com/2009/12/16/more-details-on-swindon-uk-citywide-wifi-service/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-details-on-swindon-uk-citywide-wifi-service</link>
	<description>Citywide WiFi, smart grid, enterprise wireless, public safety, mobile apps</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:38:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Esme Vos</title>
		<link>http://www.muniwireless.com/2009/12/16/more-details-on-swindon-uk-citywide-wifi-service/#comment-40839</link>
		<dc:creator>Esme Vos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.muniwireless.com/?p=12182#comment-40839</guid>
		<description>Jim Baker says: This project seems to be running into some political trouble; questions were even raised in the House of Commons by a local Member of Parliament on March 22nd 2010. 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2010-03-22a.98.2 

There appears to have been some conflict of interest between Council members and directors of the companies involved, and much debate over the £450,000 public funding provided for the project. From what I can tell this is being resolved but there is local concern over &#039;due process&#039;. Just shows that projects like this will always attract criticism if (a) the due diligence is not executed precisely right and (b) public money is involved which people think could have been better spent elsewhere.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Baker says: This project seems to be running into some political trouble; questions were even raised in the House of Commons by a local Member of Parliament on March 22nd 2010. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2010-03-22a.98.2" rel="nofollow">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2010-03-22a.98.2</a> </p>
<p>There appears to have been some conflict of interest between Council members and directors of the companies involved, and much debate over the £450,000 public funding provided for the project. From what I can tell this is being resolved but there is local concern over &#8216;due process&#8217;. Just shows that projects like this will always attract criticism if (a) the due diligence is not executed precisely right and (b) public money is involved which people think could have been better spent elsewhere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

