The Philadelphia meets (beats?) Verizon story has legs: This story blew up worldwide, and I believe Esme Vos gets some or most of the credit for it turning into an international rather than local story. Others are free to post comments disagreeing with that statement. Esme analyzes the political side of this story this morning.
Cynthia Webb of the WashingtonPost.com posted an extensive set of links following the story across the developments of the last few days, which I won't attempt to replicate, but rather guide you to read through and follow her links.
Jesse Drucker at the Wall Street Journal files an update about the law being signed.
Matt Richtel at The New York Times reports, too, declaring it a victory for Verizon Communications. Richtel quotes the governor's deputy chief of staff stating something that I had pointed out--that it's unclear what the incumbent has to build out when asked by a political subdivision. But, Mr. Myers said, the language of the law is so vague that it is not clear whether the telecommunications provider would have to use the technology favored by the city, like wireless Internet access, or whether it could provide Internet access using a different technology. [NYTimes link via the wireless weblog]
Sascha Meinrath reads HB30 very closely, and worries that as signed into law, the statute requires that anyone who wants any broadband service that the local exchange carrier doesn't offer has to petition the LEC and sign a commitment to buy into service for one year. The law lists any person, business, local development district, industrial development agency, or other entity. So the petitioning process isn't limited to municipalities: it is new providers, consumers, and business that either want a particular service from someone else or want to offer a particular service to someone else. If anyone can dispute this interpretation, please post in the comments.