From the truth or hoax file: Apparently,
Now officially confirmed: Amanda Congdon, the blogosphere's "It" girl, has been given her walking papers. (check out Amanada's farewell video.) Her take: Andrew Baron, who owns 51% of Rocketboom, didn't want her around anymore, and in a democratic society, the majority rules. If you ask me, it's a bizarre and hard-to-believe move given Amanda is the very user-friendly public face of  Rocketboom, which is just started to see some major revenue growth. Did Amanda's fame and interest in acting become an issue? It's the blogosphere's biggest scandal of the year! (note: tongue firmly in cheek) The burning question now is whether Rocketboom can continue to be Rocketboom without Amanda? Sure, everyone can be replaced but Amanda is Rocketboom and Rocketboom is Amanda. Wanna start some idle speculation about Amanda's replacement: how about Canadian Amber MacArthur (right), who appears on G4TechTV's Call for Help, Gadget & Gizmos and Torrent shows?
Update: Mathew Ingram had an e-mail chat with Andrew, who explained that Amanda wanted to move to Los Angeles but she was not willing to wait until Rocketboom had put together a transition plan. All in all, it sounds messy. As for Rocketboom's future, I disagree with Michael Arrington's belief Congdon's departure is "an unmitigated disaster". If handled properly and tactfully, Rocketboom can successfully replace Congdon with a new, fresh face. To be honest, Amber MacArthur wouldn't be a bad choice, although I suspect she's relatively unknown south of the border.
Addendum: Congdon's departure just seems, well, weird. The fact she announced her departure on the Rocketboom "set" was either a goodwill gesture by Baron or a bizarre hoax given many folks in the U.S. just came off the July 4th holiday and a four-day weekend - an eternity for a country that deems two weeks of vacation a year as more than enough time away from work.

Riddle me this: why are so many cities around the world so enthusiastic about municipal Wi-Fi systems. At a time when many cities are trapped for cash and facing pressing issues such as re-building infrastructure and other social issues, Wi-Fi access has become a priority. Paris, for example, is the latest city to jump on the Wi-Fi bandwagon with plans to provide blanket-like coverage by the end of next year - joining cities such as Toronto, Philadelphia, Anaheim, New Orleans and San Francisco. Has it come to the point where Internet access is considered a public service/utility? Should cities be in the business of providing their constituents with Internet access when, for the most part, the private sector is already serving the needs of most people? Are cities rolling out Wi-Fi simply because it's politically-friendly and comes across as forward-thinking? Frankly, the municipal Wi-Fi "movement" is a mystery because it addresses a market where many solutions already exist. It's not like the citizens of San Francisco or Toronto are begging for Internet access, especially given low-cost or free service is available at public libraries or coffee shops.
   When you think about it, the real need for Internet access isn't within municipalities but in rural communities where there is a single high-speed service provider or nothing all. It must be somewhat galling for someone who still has to live with dial-up service to see their urban cousins getting even more access choice.