Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon-Pushed WiFi Bill Becomes Law in PA

Posted by timothy on from the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law-directors-cut dept.

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.)

67 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. FCC regulation? by fredistheking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the FCC was the only organization that could regulate the airways. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:FCC regulation? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The PA state government can regulate PA city governments. The airwaves don't come into it.

    2. Re:FCC regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This doesn't mean they can't operate Wifi networks. It just means they can't charge for it.

    3. Re:FCC regulation? by nametaken · · Score: 2, Informative


      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.

    4. Re:FCC regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean just keep on giving Verizon my tax dollars in the form of gov't subsidies so that they can continue not delivering on their promises of expanding broadband coverage in Pennsyvania and just pocket my money in the end anyway. Thanks but I've seen Verizon in action...

    5. Re:FCC regulation? by nametaken · · Score: 4, Informative


      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 ... that severely limits the opportunity and limits our interest in taking the risk," says Eric Rabe, a spokesman for Verizon."

      I guess they kinda have a point.

    6. Re:FCC regulation? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fairly standard issue.

      Comes up whenever the government wants to do something like build housing and other "public works" that the private sector also provides. Government doesn't provide telephone service, for example.

      However, I don't see anything wrong with a fairly low level service that is free, and the private sector provides higher speed, secure service. Problem right now is that 802.11b is pretty darn good for general use, so its hard to segment out a role for the private sector if this is free. I hope this wouldn't block a private, non-profit from these services, though.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    7. Re:FCC regulation? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, well ... on the other hand you have to consider the source. Verizon isn't exactly a shining example of enlightened capitalism in action, you know.

      The irony in all of this is that for nearly a century the phone company was a legal monopoly established and regulated by the Federal Government. Congress was correct in their initial assumptions that a. the private sector was better suited to the task from an efficiency perspective and b. the established provider would need careful regulation and monitoring, with appropriate quality-of-service standards. Whatever else you want to say about the old Ma Bell ... the phones worked. America had one of the most reliable telephone systems on the planet. Then, "in the interests of the consumer" that government-granted monopoly was suddenly deemed "bad", and was broken up into the parent AT&T and the various RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and largely deregulated. Granted, Ma Bell had maintained iron control of the whole network (that was the law), but they could have been required to relax some of that control (for example, allowing third-party terminal equipment) rather than a break up of the company. It's not as if AT&T was an illegal monopoly, like oh, I don't know, Microsoft ... the Feds PUT them there in the first place!

      Be that as it many, we now have a private telecom provider, Verizon, coming back and convincing the government (albeit a state one, but the precedent has been set) that said government has no interest in providing a modern telecommunications service. It was the government that originally made phone service available to all, and required that it be priced at a level that wouldn't leave anyone out in the cold.

      What's worse, given the way the RBOCs have been consolidating lately, it looks like we're heading back to the days of a monopolized telephone system, but without the kind of oversight that such a system really needs. The idea of tax dollars being used to support something as critical to our lives and economy as telecommunications isn't really problematic: all governments spend our money on far less useful things every day. If Verizon can't take the competition they should just find some other industry to monopolize, rather than getting laws custom-written to eliminate that competition. They've taken a page out of the MPAA's book it seems, and frankly I'm sick of that kind of behavior.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:FCC regulation? by danheskett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really want the government in total control of every bit you pass back and forth via the Internet?

      That's not an appealing thought for many people

  2. Cities and towns strike back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    with public cat5 ethernet plugs at every street corner.

    1. Re:Cities and towns strike back by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Heh. If you really want to strike back, encourage businesses in your local community to set up free wireless hot spots with the same local ISP. The businesses get extra revenue from all the geeks suddenly getting out of their houses, and in return, everyone benefits.

      We have those sorts of community wireless projects out here in the bay area already in some places, but it isn't ubiquitous enough yet. That said, there are only a couple of places in downtown Santa Cruz where I can't see an open wireless connection from someone. (There's one at Borders, one at the apartment above Book Shop SC, one at 99 bottles, and one at the apartments above the Acapulco, or somewhere near there.)

      Once Wi-Fi becomes ubiquitous in downtown areas, the benefits the telcos get from overcharging for their wireless internet via cell phones will plummet and they'll be forced to rethink their strategy and make it something more acceptble (read "flat-rate"). If that happens, no one will really care whether the telcos or the government runs it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Quite right, it's anti competitive & monopolis by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad Verizon have done this, public telecoms are an outrage when the free market can handle it. I know the telecoms sector would never engage in monopolistic and unfair practises.

    *removes tongue from cheek*

    --
    Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
  4. Big Ed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How does Governor Ed Rendell spin this bill on behalf of his Pennsylvania constutents? Since he anticipates Verizon waiving its right to stop local competition, and likes a "lucrative provision giving phone companies like Verizon large incentives to promise to modernize their networks", he'll just tell Pennsylvanians that if they bribed him as well as Verizon, they might get him to answer their calls, too.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Big Ed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You sure are naive about telecom. The tariff lets all the "competitors" avoid competing on new features, by specifying all the features and their prices. It also prices starting new telcos in the $BILLIONS, keeping out any new competition. When something new comes along, like DSL, they tweak the tariff to kill new competitors, like they did with DSL. The only orgs foolhardy enough to start competing with telcos on something disruptive like WiFi are local governments, and now they're slapped down (at least in Pennsylvania). Even though the limited bandwidth of WiFi in a given area makes it most effective for municipal communications, like emergency services, sanitation and other state communications. If Verizon were able to compete, it would let towns and cities educate the market with WiFi, while rolling out WiMax or even (gasp) 3G, or maybe even finishing the phased-array tech that effectively unlimits bandwidth spectrum constraints (never). A competitive telco would actually see the lengths to which cities and towns are going to get wireless coverage, and *sell it to them*. Instead, they've just outlawed any possible competitive motivation to deliver this hotly desired service to their market. So no one gets it. And they've got legions of people hooting about "the market" when no such dynamic exists in this industry. I'm glad you're satisfied with your wired status quo.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Big Ed by Geckoman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Government should in no way be involved where private enterprise can provide the same service
      That's absolutely right! There's no reason in the world that governments should provide any services whatsoever that can be provided by private entities.

      Please!

      Although they are often unfair and inefficient, governments can and do provide some vital services when the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so. During the 30's, millions of people got power and paved roads thanks to the Tennessee Valley Authority and the WPA. Perfect programs? Certainly not, but they filled a need that wasn't being met by private companies.

      Most communities are willing to wait for private broadband roll-out, but for those who aren't willing to live on the cabletelco timetable, the threat of municiple broadband was a big stick to spur private companies into action. This law removes that incentive to action.

      This would be comparable to the big power companies getting laws passed during the middle of the 20th century outlawing the many rural power co-ops that sprung up to provide service to people who lived too far away from cities to get get electricity otherwise.

      If you were relocating a tech company to a small town, would you choose a city that only has relatively slow commercial broadband, or would you choose a city that has a fiber optic network that you, as a local corporate citizen, could have some influence over?

  5. And Big Business does it again... by Warthog9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly, if I remember back to all those wonderful classes on what this country was founded on it reads (paraphrasing) "For the people, by the people".

    Correct me if I'm wrong but what PA was trying to do was "For the people, by the people" and what Verizon is trying to do is "For Verizon's pocket book, by the money of the people".

    Recently a lot of these kinds of laws have really irritated me by the fact that the laws as they were ogriginally intended gave consumers, the people, the ability to actually do innovative and creative things with what they bought. Now adays there is in theory very little that I "own". My XBox is technically on lease, my software almost all of it on "lease" (well the software that isn't linux anyway thank goodness), etc. At the end of the day I can look around at my apartment and wonder what I REALLY own.

    The laws are terribly tipped in the wrong direction, this is another example of that un-balance.

    1. Re:And Big Business does it again... by Warthog9 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  6. Skill OK for non-govt. groups by btrapp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Skill OK for non-govt. groups by Saeger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Government really isn't needed to roll out a MetroArea wireless Network, though; neither is the telco monopoly.

      The future of wifi is supposed to be an emergent thing called intelligent Mesh Networking, where each new private/public node contributes some of its resources to a networked fabric, rather than interfering with it like 802.11a/b/g. The more nodes (w/ caching) the better (like BitTorrent).

      Of course, the major "drawback" of bottom-up mesh networking --besides the routing being somewhat complicated-- is that it lacks a Command&Control point for some entity to set up a tollbooth on and profit from, so it would be even more disruptive than conventional wifi.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  7. Exception made for Philadelphia by trickofperspective · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Exception made for Philadelphia by toxic666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a resident of the Commonwealth, I once again take my shoes off to our elected officials willingness to tax us directly and indirectly to subsidize Verizon. Remeber the sweetheart, multi-billion dolar tax breaks they got to roll out high-speed (10's og Mbit/s) broadband, then stuck us with DSL?

      http://www.newnetworks.com/Libertybellstolen.htm

      Sheesh! Pennsylvania (aka Pennsyltucky) is Philly and Pittsburg with Alabama in between. If you've ever seen our legislature in session, the bib overalls might clue you in as to how technically savvy those guys are.

      Even my own rep. LOVES Verizon. I attended a breakfast Q&A he held, and asked about the Broadband deal and why the legislature amended the requirements for Verizon at MY expense. He got pissed and started bitching to the masses about how he gets all sorts of mail critical of Verizon, but he thinks they are just great. He also "explained" that it would have cost Verizon huge amounts of money to roll out fiber to rural and mountainous areas that don't need it.

      So, I asked what the taxpayers got for all that money because Verizon just provided DSL over existing copper. Next question, please!

  8. Play-by-Play by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    as quoted from the Pay-Per-View Avarice Hour of Power

    Gov. Rendell: This bill is a piece of crap.
    Minion of Telecoms: We're rich
    Gov. Rendell: I cannot be bribed!
    Minion of Telecoms: Oh, we wouldn't dream of it!
    Gov. Rendell: Good to hear it, I'll just veto this sucker.
    Minion of Telecoms: We'll direct our considerable influence to your opponent in the next gubenatorial election.
    Gov. Rendell: ... ah yes, there's the line I sign on scrit-scrit-scrizzitz-scrit-scrut
    Minion of Telecoms: Good boy, here's a dog biscuit.
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. Re:Quite right, it's anti competitive & monopo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes,

    Well, before wireless, it was wired. In 1995, the State of Texas passed a bill that prevented the City of Austin from string fiber optic between its high-schools, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and power substations.

    Seems that Southwestern Bell though it mighty uncompetitive of the City of Austin to replace old crappy 9600 baud modems with something that would be faster *and* cheaper! Of course, the Texas Leg voted was anti-people back then too.

  10. Re:Whats next?, no state-run auto manufacturers? by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a municipal wireless ISP were so inefficient compared to the private sector why would Verizon have lobbied so hard to ban it? Discuss among yourselves...

  11. Re:Philadelphia free WI-FI? by AgentUSA · · Score: 2

    The city reached an agreement with Verizon yesterday.

    http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/11/30/ap1 683445.html

  12. There's no monopoly by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Informative

    All the other hotspot networks (e.g. T-Mobile in Starbucks) are still operating, so Verizon would have to compete with them.

  13. Re:In Verizon Country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a *joke*.

    Well as a Korean I don't find it at all funny, not only it's offensive but because where I come from jokes are only for old people.

  14. There are also good reasons for this by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, before you fly off the handle about why this law was passed....consider this:

    Do you really want your government running any kind of telecom infrastructure? I mean, I am all for "services for the people" and all that jazz but on the other side, I am also for smaller government.

    WiFi *could* be used as just one more reason to take more of my hard earned money. This bill assures that won't happen.


    (p.s. I am against this bill but I am just playing the devil's advocate because issues are rarely black and white. More like lukewarm grey.)

  15. Typical by nunya_bizns · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Typical by Jodka · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is typical of Pennsylvania's legislature to bendover backwards in favor of Verizon.

      You misspelled "forwards"

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  16. Would you have phone service now...? by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unless you live in a major metro area, the chances of you having wired phone access would be even lower than your chances of cell access if it hadn't been for the government putting down the cash to install a phone network.

    I don't mind the private sector but i do think that broadband providers should have to do an all or nothing approach. Making sure that all their customers have DSL availability.

  17. Re:I see Verizon's point of view... by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh my God you are so right!

    I can't believe the government is funding public libraries, they're taking money from commercial bookstores. Like, OmiGod! And the streets! Woah, they should let go of city maintenance and allow the commercial road surfacing companies to fill in the potholes on the street... But wait, there's more! Why is the police allowed to operate, don't they know that they're taking money away from commercial security providers? Heck why do we have cities to begin with, we could just outsource everything to India...

    Wait...

    I'm dashing off to the patent office with a big grin on my face...

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  18. Isn't It Obvious? by PenchantToLurk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can hear the conversation now:

    VZ: Wi-Fi for every citizen, what a great Idea!
    PA: Yeah, we're going to give it away to attract
    a modern crowd.
    VZ: Oh, yeah, the billions in infrastructure that
    we put into your state, the jobs, tax revenue,
    all that stuff, you still want that don't you? ..etc...

    It's not necessarily 'selling out', or 'paid off politicians', just legit local politics. States and towns have been whoring to business forever, in various incarnations. In the poli minds, it's better to have positive corporate presence than a few towns with wi-fi. Especially since the assets will be trash in 10 years, as wireless high-speed internet supplants it, delivered by none other than VZ.

  19. Politics... by Jerrry · · Score: 2, Funny

    Governor Ed Rendell is no fool. He's not going to bite the hand that feeds him.

  20. Proving He's the Devil! by ZooB · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank you Gov. Rendell for proving that both Democrats and Republicans can be the Devil incarnate.

    Gov. Rendell disagrees with the legislature and the bill but signs it anyway promising to personally help local communities to defy the law with his approval....?

    For an encore, Gov. Rendell will legalize the molestation of boys but promises to personally protect young boys from molestation!

    --
    Before you've made up your mind about an issue, go read about it for yourself. http://www.anwr.org/
  21. Re:Knee Jerk reaction, and well thought about reac by Veccio · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of the Alfred P. Sloan and our beloved General Motors's successful sceme to ruin America's public transportation system in the 50s.
    http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm

    But nearly free is still not free, right? I can imagine Verizon's idea of 'free' WiFi: Ad-bloated, tracked, data mined and generally so cumbersome as to make you want to pay for a service that could be free.

    I prefer that my local government, that I have *a teensy* bit of say in control this much more than Verizon.

  22. Why did I bother voting? by Facekhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there even a reason we vote anymore. I think I am about to become a principled non-voter based on the fact that our government is now so corrupt we only help legitimize it by voting. I think I will start a public ad drive next election cycle to encourage people not to vote with the goal of keeping the voting population below 50% and therefore keep our government illegitimate.

    Its not so much like this is a bad law so much as corporations really have taken over (in place of the big churches) because they pay almost no taxes (because they know how to work the system) and they are both considered persons under the law regarding free expression but also act as a shield by their owners and executives through which great personal wealth can be created with no personal responsibility.

    Lets face it. The BOD of Verizon or Haliburton could order me killed tommorrow and they would probably never even be charged. So much for a system of laws.

    1. Re:Why did I bother voting? by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " Is there even a reason we vote anymore."

      In a word, no.

      Democracy was a great experiment but now it's dead. Vast majority of the pupulation of the US now lives in a house district where the candidate from one party wins overwhelmingly. The party made sure the district got drawn that way.

      Vast majority of Americans now live in a state which always votes for the candidate of one party for president.

      Vast majority of Americans live in a state who always votes for the senator from one party.

      In America anyway (the supposed birthplace of democracy) vast majority of votes don't really matter.

      Finally the politicians have perfected the art of manipulating the masses. They know what buttons to push to get you to vote for them. For example when the next election cycle comes up the people of pensylvannia will completely ignore this case and will instead vote purely on guns, abortion, homosexual marriage, or some other wedge issue. The fact that they are getting fleeced never occurs to them when somebody claims that joe shmoe will take away their guns or end abortion.

      Disclaimer: I realize other countries may have a more democratic/representitive system then the US.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Why did I bother voting? by datastalker · · Score: 2

      Or, instead of not voting, you could join the Libertarian Party, and vote with the one party that stands for true liberty.

      --
      Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
    3. Re:Why did I bother voting? by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A) your preaching to the choir, since /. and the geek community is a hotbed of libertarianism.

      B) Libertarianism isn't a viable opertunity, since it allows corporations to be bigger bastards than they are now, with a complete lack of regulation. And the libertarian embrace of Randian self interest will also lead to a further degradation of morality, and social reponcibility.

      Though my co-responder does have a point, the Green Party is a safe alternative to politics as usual, though sadly it is as viable as any of the other choices, being more ideological than practicle.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  23. Aquafina? by kkovach · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has Aquafina tried this anywhere with water?

    - Kevin

    --
    The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
  24. Skill OK for non-govt. groups-Libertarian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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)"

    That's quite fair (especially from a libertarian standpoint). Why should a government institution under threat of the gun dictate that my money go to WiFi?

  25. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... by acoustix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...please RTFA. This does not affect FREE city-provided WiFi. This only affects PAID city-provided WiFi.

    I happen to agree with this move. The government should not be in the business of providing non-essential services. Government-run businesses do not have to make a profit, and actually don't even have to break even. Private companies on the other hand, have to make a profit to survive. It would be unfair competition.

    -Nick

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... by Sabriel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The government should not be in the business of providing non-essential services. Government-run businesses do not have to make a profit, and actually don't even have to break even. Private companies on the other hand, have to make a profit to survive. It would be unfair competition.
      Really? Why would it be unfair? Unfair to who? Non-essential to whom? What's non-essential? Why must a non-essential service be run at a profit?

      Government *is* a business. Only the nameplates are different. If it can provide a service in such a way that it's a better deal for the community...

      Now, what's unfair is when a business (Verizon) can get the government (state) to enact law that prevents other businesses (local govts) from competing with it. Open marketplace my shiny metal LAN port.

  26. Our politicians are bought and paid for.... by bill · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/5009141.htm'

    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.]

  27. Ahhh, the essence of Capitalism... by JCCyC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...lobby the government to outlaw competition!

    1. Re:Ahhh, the essence of Capitalism... by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not competition, that's a tax-funded program. How is verizon (or any other carrier) supposed to compete against that? Verizon can't take the money from you against your will, like the government can. Verizon can't force you to be a customer.

      And when the big corporations lobby for preferential legislation (which they do frequently), it's not capitalism, it's socialism. In capitalism the government can't hinder or support any private entity: their fates are left to the market to decide.

    2. Re:Ahhh, the essence of Capitalism... by TarrVetus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm probably tempting flamebait here, but....
      That's not competition, that's a tax-funded program. How is verizon (or any other carrier) supposed to compete against that? Verizon can't take the money from you against your will, like the government can. Verizon can't force you to be a customer.
      Exactly.

      This legislation is nothing new. We're not slipping down any kind of dangerous slope because of this legislation. Is your phone service provided by the government? What about your current internet access?

      This bill prevented the government from dominating internet access in the state of Pennsylvania. We should be happy that the government didn't gain this kind of control. Yes, a massive Wi-Fi grid would be nice, but do you really want the government to provide your internet and, hence, have more control over its content?
    3. Re:Ahhh, the essence of Capitalism... by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fine. When Verizon takes down the phone lines on my property that the government let them put up through eminent domain, and their trucks stay off the public streets, and the police don't stop anyone who tries to burn down their headquarters, we'll talk.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:Ahhh, the essence of Capitalism... by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not competition, that's a tax-funded program. How is verizon (or any other carrier) supposed to compete against that? Verizon can't take the money from you against your will, like the government can. Verizon can't force you to be a customer.

      Have you lost sight of the fact that Verizon is just not some private sector company? The government(s) have given the phone company MONOPOLY status. This same Verizon has done everything in its lobbying power to prevent other private companies from competing with them. I think there is a pretty long history that demonstrates Verizon has no interest in serving the public in a broad approach; they just want to skim the 'cheaper to service' customers. The PA initiative is visionary--like rural electrification. It realizes, to use the words of the business person, that in order to be competitive in todays global enconomy in an information age, residents of the city need to be part of the information haves, not have nots.

      Remember that Verizon fought tooth and nail in the states it 'serves' to prevent ISDN (and later DSL) from being considering a non-discretionary service subject to public utility regulation which I think would have resulted in much broader roll-out. Now that a city realizes that Verizon has no plans to roll out service to everyone, they want to provide it themselves as an infrastructure.

      Philly is just trying to be competitive. Its just like how cities/states give tax incentives for people to move their businesses there.

      The monolopy Verizon has is absurd. Here in Maryland, a long time ago, Verizon upgraded from analog to digital switches (SS7). The cost of that upgrade was allowed to be pass on to the rate payer with promises of new digital features for POTS and ISDN capability. Despite the ratepayer paying for the SS7 infrastructue, Verizon started charging outrageous fees ($3.50 for Caller ID per month, etc) for software capabilities we had to pay for. Verizon has no real interest in serving all the people in Philly--they would much rather implement 'caller ringtones' that they can charge $2 bucks a month for. I wish I had a money machine like that.

  28. What? by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What does it fucking matter?

    I mean, the trend is leaning more and more corporate every year. When is voting going to become a show when what really matters is corporate backing? Oh wait, its half way there already.

    Don't like what your customers are doing with your products? Write a law against them, push it through the court. Soon, your opposition is arrested or forced to stop doing what you don't like.

    Don't like another business? Write a law against them, push it through the court. Soon, your opposition is arrested or forced out of business.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  29. Re:I see Verizon's point of view... by recharged95 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "It's not fair for the gov't to compete with private industry" On the flip side--WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST 4 YEARS?!@#! One word: Halliburton (it IS the gov't?)....

  30. What the fuck? by wurp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The city of Philadelphia made a deal with Verizon to let them break new PA communication laws?

    Can I make a deal with Smith & Wesson to legally shoot the people who made those laws?

    More seriously - if this is a law generally governing how the government can (or can't) compete with commercial wireless services, how the hell can one company give the city the OK to break the law? If the law is actually written to prevent competition with Verizon specifically, how can PA citizens not be rebelling?

  31. Re:Whats next?, no state-run auto manufacturers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if GM builds crappy cars... the govt should step in and "make good ones" so that people don't have to drive a crappy car?

    Bottom line; if Verizon did such a terrible job, and there was actual *demand* for the service, competitors like Cingular, SBC, etc would simply step in and compete.

  32. Doesn't by Kaboom13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This bill would stop municipalties from getting into the wireless internet access business with tax dollars. It does not mean only Verizon can step in to provide the services. If the community wants it, nothing is stopping them from starting a business and doing it. Lots of cities give out small business loans and so forth, if they believe the city needs such a business, nothing is stopping them. Wireless equipment is not that expensive, and there are lots of small isps across the country, so with a cooperative government it should not be difficult. They could then collect fees from people who actually use the service, instead of charging everyone whether they like it or not. Verizon is in the right when they say a private company (who can only charge their users) can not compete with a tax supported utility that charges everyone through taxes. If verizon can not manage it, someone else will.

  33. Re:Anti-Trust Possible? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't think you mean commodity. I think you mean an essential service. If those services were a commodity, there would be ample competition in the market. However, unnatural forces (monopolies on wirers on the poles, limited demand, high cost to enter the market) make that not the case. That's why the government should step in. A hundred companies selling cellular service or broadband results in a reasonable level of competition. A half dozen does not. In most areas, there are less than that.

    As a service becomes fundamentally essential to the equality of the people, it must either become so inexpensive that it is affordable by all (e.g. the commoditization of the industry through a huge number of players) or it must become socialized. If one of these two things doesn't happen, it will, over time, result in the gap between the haves and the have-nots becoming progressively larger and the gradual erosion of the middle class.

    While "equality at all costs" is not a virtue, equality in at least the basic requirements to function in a modern society is a necessity.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  34. Cities CAN offer services by JoeGTN1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.)

  35. Re:Monopolies? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First of all, Large Company® is NOT a monopoly. Next, it would be the government creating the monopoly if they were to provide access themselves. Really easy plan: take the everyone's money and provide connections to those who wants it for 'free' (or very cheaply), they would be able to do this becasue they can just tax everyone without actually asking. Who's anti-competitive now?

  36. Re:Capitalism by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What government takeover are you referring to? I missed the part of the PA proposal where they were going to use eminent domain to take over Verizon's infrastructure. From the reading, this is a new market and the people wish to insure that a certain level of service is provided. Apparently, the people of this municipality feel that this is a more efficient means of providing a certain level of service as opposed to waiting till Verizon felt the market would bear it.

    I see this legislation as anti-competitive. Verizon now has no viable competition. Mom & Pops aren't going to roll out a municipal wide network like this, they haven't the resources. They might have had a chance to bid on parts of the municipal contracts in various cities in PA, but now they won't. Given that much of municipal work goes to small businesses based in local communities, I fail to see how this is in any way helpful to Mom & Pop operations in PA. Do you have any idea what it's like to be a Mom & Pop who actually has the nerve to compete with Verizon? I've known a few and the results weren't pretty, kind of like a small child's bike in a head on collision with an SUV.

    Your theoretical rambling is short-sighted and not based in the realities of the market. As for new and innovative services offered by the government, perhaps I can direct you to the New Deal or the Internet. Your anti-government stance is illogical and rooted in fallacies and mythology. Your assumptions that the government would dot all the i's and cross all the t's of these services, or that no other service would be allowed to compete is unfounded.

    Please go back to econ theory 102, cause you seem to need more detail than they provided in 101. Your idea that private business is innovative at creating new infrastructure or universal infrastructure is laughable on it's face. There is no historical or even modern example of this, all of our utility infrastructures were public/private partnerships at best. Private business is only good at innovating on existing infrastructure. I'll stop here cause beating your dogma anymore would border on ideological cruelty.

    --
    Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
  37. Re:Capitalism by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How exactly do you compete against the government?

    The same way FedEx and UPS compete with the USPS.

    When was the last time you heard of the government offering new, innovative services?

    Interstates, police, military, courts - all those are socialist services provided by the US, state, and local governments. And they are more efficient as public services than as private services. Capitalism is great, but there are some things at which it is not as efficient as socialism - things which the US currently uses and which work pretty darned well. We have a socialist military - it's funded by the people through taxation, and is provided equally to all. We have socialist police, roads, and courts.

    Now, I'm not saying that a socialist WiFi infrastructure necessarily is one of the things which is more efficient if run socialistically than capitalistically, but the US definitely has both capitalist and socialist institutions, and has examples of both that work well and examples of both that work poorly.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  38. Re:I see Verizon's point of view... by NetCynicism · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are areas where the government can do at least a semicompetent job of providing services. This is especially true of items that everybody has to have no matter how low the qaulity is, such as education (including libraries) and policing. There are also areas where the government cannot do a semicompent job of providing services. One of these is technology - ask anyone who had to wait several months to get a phone under a communist government. You think municipal broadband is cute and wonderful until the municipality has driven out all private industry with its subsidies- and then decides it's more important to fund a new sewage project or a new football stadium than its telecom monopoly, and suddenly you can't get service or, if you do, it takes six months, costs a fortune, and uses outdated equipment. In other words, the same 'public' quality as 'public toilets'.

  39. Re:Dear Verizon by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which gives one pause: how much bandwidth does God have, actually? Probably a fair amount, but yeah, I'd bet Verizon has more...

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  40. Re:Why did I bother voting? - They want you to. by bstarrfield · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I honestly believe that our democracy is an illusion, and we're taught to vote in our schools in order to make us complacent. Voting makes people feel as if they have "ownership" of the system, though our government is evidently owned by corporations.

    We're all taught to legitimize the government. That way, when our government commits atrocities, it's with the implicit agreement of the American people. The myth that every man (or woman) can become president is taught to children, whether the sons of the wealthy (who do stand a chance of being president), and the child in the inner city (who basically has a tiny chance of even escaping poverty). Our Congress is made of millionaires, to a lesser extent our judiciary. Don't even think about getting a good executive branch political appointment without having donated a fortune to whomever is in power at the time.

    We do have a system of laws, however. Those laws exist primarily to protect private property. At times I think our freedoms - what remain after four years of Bush II - exist only to let us vent of steam, and never get angry enought to overthrow those who control our destinies.

    --
    /* Dang, I can't type that well. */
  41. No, they don't. by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess they kinda have a point.

    Bullshit. Coca-Cola could make the same argument about the government interfering with their ability to make a profit of Disanti water because, shucks, the public water utilities are hurting their ability to compete.

    Communications, in this day and age, are as vital a resource as water and transportation. Leaving it in the hands of a few private organizations to implement when and where they see fit (e.g., when and where they can make a profit) is, to put it blundly, bullshit.

  42. Re:Quite right, it's anti competitive & monopo by griffjon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It should be noticed, however, that Austin is implementing a free wifi in city parks plan. And, of course, you can't swing a patch cable without passing it through an open wifi network, mostly due to the hard-workin' volunteers at http://www.austinwirelesscity.org/

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  43. Kutztown, PA by amishdisco · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!

  44. Philadelphia the exception? by Wenalex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They were discussing on Off the Hook tonight about how Philadelphia and Verizon struck a deal that would allow the city to move forward irregardless of whether or not the bill was passed. Anyone know anything more about this?