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 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
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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
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."
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.]
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.