Slashdot Mirror
Verizon-Pushed WiFi Bill Becomes Law in PA
Cryofan writes "A Wall Street Journal article (via freepress) tells the sad tale of how legislation barring PA municipalities from offering paid telecom services was signed into law. 'Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell said late Tuesday night that he had signed into law a large telecommunications bill placing severe restrictions on the ability of cities and towns to offer telecommunications services, an item that was heavily lobbied by Verizon Communications Inc. and other big telephone companies in similar legislation across the country.'" (Also mentioned last week.)
The PA state government can regulate PA city governments. The airwaves don't come into it.
This doesn't mean they can't operate Wifi networks. It just means they can't charge for it.
The title of the article is a little misleading - while the ruling does bar municipalities creating their own networks, this does not stop private groups of citizens from creating municipal networks.
So a motivated group of citizens can still create a city wide wireless network, it's just the local governments that can't. (I wonder if the govt. can give grants to the citizens... that'd be a nice work-around)
It should be noted that Philadelphia made a deal with Verizon that will allow it to go forward with their original city-wide WiFi rollout despite this law.
~Trick
All the other hotspot networks (e.g. T-Mobile in Starbucks) are still operating, so Verizon would have to compete with them.
This is typical of Pennsylvania's legislature to bendover backwards in favor of Verizon.
Verizon struck a landmark deal with the state of Pennsylvania to provide 45MB/s Symmetrical Fiber to the entire state. Verizon recieved over $2 Billion from Pennsylvania but Verizon did not come close to meeting its agreement - wire 50% of PA with 45MB/s Symmetrical Fiber by the end of 2004. The state allowed Verizon to completely ignore the original agreement and keep all the financial incentives. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/30544
Actually, it's a law that dictates local governments can't make their own low-cost or free wifi access for it's citizens until the telco's get a crack at it. If the telco says no, the gov's can go ahead. I might be off about this, but it's what I remember reading in the WSJ yesterday. It might be to keep government from dominating communications services, but either way, it APPEARS to SUCK.
Big donors power governor's big dance
By John Sullivan and Rose Ciotta
Inquirer Staff Writers
Gov. Rendell raised more than $2.5 million from about 200 private donors for his inaugural bash, with much of the money flowing from corporations, trade unions, lawyers and professional associations.
Contributors to the big party included many who gave heavily to Rendell's campaign for governor, some who supported his opponents, and others who have earned millions of dollars from state contracts.
There were five categories of donors, with the highest, an elite list of 15, paying $50,000 each to earn "benefactor" status.
Some of the top corporate donors included Comcast, Unisys, Verizon and SAP Public Services.
Organizers of the event, which was estimated to cost more than $3 million, said donors did not earn special access to Rendell. [HAHAHA! yeah, right.]
Apologize for responding to my own post, but I found the WSJ article I was reading the other day...
"The telecom companies argue that it is unfair for them to have to compete against the government. They say that the legislation enables them to improve service to their customers by investing in their networks. "If we put that money at risk, and here comes government to compete against us, with advantages that government has -- not paying taxes, access to capital at good rates
I guess they kinda have a point.
Cities CAN offer services if the local telcom refuses and then doesn't offer their own within 14 months. http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/11/30/ap1 683445.html
Anywhere I have lived it has taken well more than 14 months for a local telcom to go from drawing board to actually offering a service. This provision sounds like it's to prevent municipalities from undercutting an already in-progress project. Besides, I don't want to pay taxes for this service, I want to pay a company who I can complain to. (Not that they'll listen, but they'll listen a whole lot more than some local government.)
I can dig up a copy of the XBox licensing agreement that came in the box, and in fact I've taught several classes around this licensing agreement. If you read it carefully (well at least the ones I have) they all state you don't own the xbox, you merely have a license to use the xbox, and that the xbox is still technically the property of Microsoft.
As for the software, your right I do own a license to the data on it, and I own the media and the paper bits, but beyond that I'm SOL I don't own it.
Posession might have been 9/10s of the law. It's not anymore.
Here in Kutztown, PA, we have a borough-sponsored fiber-to-the-curb network. It's really convenient and the price is $15 a month for 2Mbps down ($40 total if you want a full 1Mps up, too) ... pretty decent.
Hopefully we get grandfathered in, becuase one of the reasons Kutztown pursued this multi-million dollar project was the way Verizon dragged their feet and refused to bring DSL here. (Actually, the Borough of Kutztown pretty much controls all of its utilities)
I have Vonage and my fiber connection, and I am extremely happy that Verizon is not a part of my life anymore. You'll take my fiber out of my cold, dead hand you fucking corporate swine!