Slashdot Mirror
Municipal Wi-Fi Battle Moves to Texas
Cryofan writes "The fight in Texas is heating up over municipal wireless. Texas House Bill 789, under consideration in Texas, would impose one of the most extreme bans on municipal involvement in any form of communications--free or otherwise (the bill could ban free library access)."
Before you jump to conclusions why not try reading it first?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
government and corporation going together, surprise, surprise.
Just plain insane. Completely banning municipalities from communications? What about police CBs? What about 911 dispatch? And for what purpose? To keep towns from competing with for-profit Wi-Fi? Bogus.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
It is very common for people to read abbreviated versions of long works before, or sometimes even in place of, the works themselves. Rather than "jumping to conclusions", though this may be an accurate way of putting things, this usually referred to as a "summary".
With the current business climate being mostly in favor or monopolies and such, moves like this are hardly surprising.
This should be kept in mind when cheering for municipal wi-fi access.
The commercial services should not have any problem whatsoever defeating them in the marketplace then. Problem solved, and this bill is not needed.
Never liked those places anyway. (wink wink)
The United States government already manages many public works. The United States Postal Service (although it isn't completely run by the government, it is largely funded by the government and thus, in my opinion, under government control), as well as many public works. What's different about this public offering? It can be argued that it is a necessary service in our modern age in order to communicate/do business (similar to the USPS). I think the government will probably just mess it up, like it does most things, but maybe give it a shot. Widespread, tax-payer funded Wi-Fi being funded by our tax dollars will hopefully just save it from being squandered elsewhere... but they'll probably just charge us more... sigh!
I don't really see a problem with a municipality creating/maintaining the base architecture and having other companies provide service on top of that. That was, it is certain that the access will be there even if it would be commercially unattractive or risky to do so for companies.
see a Text Widget
welp here's my school library books, and my half finished homework that was due yesterday. ;)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
I like the idea of wi-fi everywhere. I have no great love for or trust in telecom and cable companies.
But I don't have a lot of confidence that local governments could do a better job of delivering a high-tech service.
I don't buy my electricity from my town.
I don't buy my telephone service from my town.
I don't buy my cable service from my town.
I do buy my water from my town (Barnegat, NJ).
It's expensive and everybody I know has a filter on their kitchen faucets or under their sinks.
Insert witty sig here.
It's wireless. You set up transmitter/receivers and they transmit and receive. Once you've put the hotspots in place and plugged them into some kind of pipe to the internet itself, there isn't anything left for "other companies" to provide.
Here ya go: see how your tax dollars are freeing so many Iraqi kids from brutal tyranny (be sure to scroll all the way to the bottom!). Good to see, aint it?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
New fangled Wify damn it's un American. You support wiffy you support terrorism. Damn. We need more laws to ban everything. If you don't support new laws to ban stuff you are un-American. New laws to ban all stuff stop terrorists from strapping explosives to themselves. damn.
I do not understand how people can be so cinnic. They do believe municipal WiFi is free? If the city town spends money on it, then it will have to recover them from somewhere else (maybe raising the taxes to all the population, maybe giving less funding to an area that may be more important, or maybe by charging the users -as any company-). It can't just assume its costs and get in red for that.
/.ers like it is because, beeing usually more computer savvy -and having all of them internet- they want their neighbours that do not connect to share the connection costs.
I think the true reason
BTW, a previous topic did state that europeans are switching from a public telephonic network to a private one because it is better... nothing more far from reality. Companies that provide social services (Postal, Communications) were often owned by the states(that granted them the monopoly) to ensure that they did provide their service to everyone, even if it was not economical (for example, providing postal service for remote small towns, where the cost of going and check if there is something to send is always bigger than any expected revenue). The reason of privatizing them now has been to allow more competence and to avoid that a state locks its country for other EU companies, and now to get the same social benefits the prefered way is for the state to sponsor them (and I can tell that some of the canges have been for worse; because the greed of the companies to win a contract and earn money often can be noted in the QoS).
Why can't
Fuck Texas. Let them create stupid laws. Let their talented move to staes that recognize the value of the interweb. While we're at it, let them secede and take their former governor http://www.whitehouse.gov/ with them! If they don't want their citizenry educated, I suppose it's their prerogative. Where are Texas schools right now anyways? Ahead of Arkansas? Behind Bulgaria?
In the long run, it doesn't matter. As America regulates and scams itself into technical obscurity, more innovative and--dare I say--democratic societies will have competitive advantages and eventually eclipse her. Mostly reminds me of the 20-year stall on FM radio because the big old boys were perfectly happy with the profits they were making on AM. Eventually FM won out (of course), because it was technically superior.
As an American, I am of course sad to see it coming, but any country where rougly half want Dubya as a leader should expect repercussions.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Beleive what you will, this is not the place for a political discussion..
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I was simply replying to the subject raised by the parent poster, and that poster's subject was linked to the main subject of this thread by posing it as an alternative. So you know where you cram your censorship, right?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The very purpose of the bill is to promote alternatives, by preventing local municipalities from using tax-money to fund WiFi networks. This is NOT a ban on WiFi. It has nothing to do with existing Telco's or land lines.
If the people of a city choose an local government that wants to build wavelan - and they are forbidden by the state government, how can one call that democracy?
If the will of the people in one city is to build a free wavelan - HOW can one stop that and still call oneself a democracy?
You'd think that they would want to attract tourists and tech-savvy residents, who just happen to be the people who would be most attracted to municipal wireless. I guess not. Well, their loss. The only people to blame are the Texans who elected a group of people who want to reward telcos and cable companies at the expense of the residents. I should say that I all of my utilities are provided by my municipality and the rates and service are great.
The response is simple:
If you're from Texas, call your state legislator and urge them to vote against it.
If you're not from Texas then kindly shut the fuck up.
Jonathan B.
The politicians know that if they pass this bill, they will get "donations" from the telco's, which will go right into their own pockets after they leave office. So passing this bill is to the personal gain of the politicians. What you are talking about is longterm gain for the citizens of Texas. THat is not all that much a consideration fot them. For some of them, yes. But personal gain is foremost, as it always is with any human or animal. What we need is a system that acknowledges this inherent human greed and deals with it. Just like a machine, e.g., an engine, acknowledges and deals with the powerful forces within the engine. Our government is a poorly designed machine. And no big surprise that it is: after all, the core of our government is the federal constitution, over 200 years old, designed by slaveowning aristocrats who explicitly designed it so as to be able to maintain and further their own dominance.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Old Europe we don't have these problems! FB!!!
SBC the people who brought you: /.
The web patent WRT frames previously written about on
The 'no muni fiber' law in Wisconsin.
Check the pockets of the 'elected' State officials and you'll find 'em lined with money from SBC.
I work with municipal utilities. I've seen the way they do business up close and there's no way I want any city providing my internet service, phone service, cable television service, electricity, gas, or water. City government is characterized by two things - ignorance and corruption.
Cities are run by politicians - mayors and council members for the most part (it varies). A person could be selling shoes one day, be elected to the council the next day, and overnight they become an expert on wi-fi? Not hardly. I know I've seen municipal gas systems run into the ground by ignorant politicians. I wouldn't want my internet service treated the same way.
A city-run utility has an unfair advantage when competing against a private utility company. Cities don't pay taxes. But cities certainly have a love of your money. Municipal employee unions are some of the worst examples of unions. Service sucks and prices rise. Is that what most of you would want?
Right now, only my water service is city-owned. And it sucks big time.
That is how this should work. I don't care if the pipe is copper, fibre, or radio. Then providers can set up anywhere in town and provide the gateways the community is willing to pay for. They did this for the electric utility in New York.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
There are many well funded thinktanks that poll Americans on what their opinions are on many subjects (including this municipal wifi). These think tanks and the corporate lobbyists work hand in hand with the politicians and the media to keep the American populace under control so that the world can be kept safe for capitalism and profits and wealth. So these politicians ALREADY know that most Americans do not like what is happening with respect to municipal wifi. Or if the situation is explained to them, that is. Most Americans are abysmally ignorant....
Now here is the important part: you political representatives do not care what you say when you call them--as long as opinion polling shows that they can act with impunity. The most important thing to them is whether the MASS MEDIA will make a stink about it. As long as the tv does not attack them for killing muni wifi, they KNOW that going against constitutent/citizen opinion will not hurt them. Nothing much happens in America unless the TV takes a role in it, as least where citizen involvement is concerned. And the mass media oligarchy is SOLIDLY behind the telco's on this matter. After all, the telcos pay HUGE advertising dollars.
So call your representatives all you want. They already know what you think--the corporate think tanks keep them well informed in this regard, and they know just how far they can go.
IMO, nothing will change this dynamic until a separate criminal justice system (with harsh penalties) is created especially for politicians and CEOs and elite media.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
In Texas, anything the government does is "socialist". The Republicans keep it around justified on the basis that "we represent those commie Democrats, too", so they have a vehicle for power and corporate welfare. But it better not step out of line...
--
make install -not war
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. I believe you mean "taxpayer funded".
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
I live in the city, all the negatives wouldn't effect me. My mail would be cheap and fast. It's the assholes who live in rural America who'd take it in the ass. And it's about time. Why should the wealth of cities subsidise their hick lifestyles. They don't appreciate it, I don't appreciate the burden.
Looks like SBC's employees in Austin are hard at work.
Having Read The Fine Amendment (the bill amends the existing Utilities Code), here are a few salient quotes:
Roughly translated:
If someone wants to abide by "free-market" principles, they might start by acknowledging that a group of citizens who agree to cooperate to provide a service for the public good are a part of the market.
Any truly free and fair market should allow for a balance of both public and private participation.
Government promotion of business interests over public interests has a name: fascism. (But calling it that tends to upset the chickens, so the less-upsetting alternative used these days is "reform.")
If the communications companies (SBC alone has $40B in annual revenues, $100B in assets, and over 150,00 employees) can't compete against the residents of Plano, or Amarillo, or even Dallas, well, the real free market is tough. Compete fairly and provide a better service or find another line of work.
(And we chickens better do something about this sort of "reform" other than just post to
language that is intended to prevent power utilities from getting into the ISP business. I don't think it will have any substantial impact on urban areas. I think it is intended more to prevent rural power coops from becoming ISPs - using the power lines in rural areas would be the most cost effective way to push high-speed access out into rural areas that are a 50+ miles from any major urban center.
Or haven't you been listening to these psychotards and their desire to christianize the nation?
I'd rather not have my tax money used to provide wireless broadband. Linksys and Netgear seem to provide it already.
Elect pro-business candidates then act all surprised when they create sweethear legislation protecting business interests. Duh.
Too bad we can't get Texas, Alabama and Utah closer together. Then we could let them start their own right wing facist christian paradise here on earth. The religion of big business at a 4th grade reading level.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This reminds me of why I left ('course, Georgia's not much better...)
They say the mind is the first thing to
It's obvious that's he's talking about the ban on municipal wireless networks.
The very purpose of the bill is to promote alternatives
If by "alternatives" you mean "the sacred right of businesses to make money anywhere they can by any means necessary, even to the detriment of public", then yes. Besides if private enterprise is always so much better and effecient than government, then Verizon and friends will just come out with a much better wireless network and everyone will want to throw money at them.
I for one support the specific section of the bill preventing municipialites from creating Wi-Fi networks and therefore state sanctioned monopolies.
Free market competition always provides a better solution. Look at Lithuana, Estonia, and Latvia, the free markets have served them very well.
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
This bill would, if implemented to full effect, prevent cities from putting up access points in City Hall, public parks, or the public libraries. If you live in Texas, please call your legislator and ensure that, if nothing else, such exceptions are delineated. You can find them by using this form. This could be one of the stupider bills to pass this year.
I'll be putting in a call to Eddie Rodriquez and Gonzalo Barrientos later. Hopefully Gonzalo will be sober for a change.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
...to building team sports stadiums in Texas with public money?
...you'd have a good point. But we aren't so you don't. A state run service would presumably negociate with a single company to install access points and provide internet service to a large number of cities, and inefficiency and waste would inevitably result.
But we're talking about municipalities here, cities, which are an entirely different kettle of fish. A few dozen access points in one city are a lot easier to manage than dozens of access points in dozens of cities. There is no reason why a muncipality couldn't buy a few T-1's, buy some base stations and offer internet access for pennies on the dollar compared to what Verizon would want individual customers to pay.
This is a very old debate, from at least 1789 in the U.S. The question in those days was whether the federal government was justified in spending money on free light signals for shipping. The construction of a lighthouse, the staffing, maintenance and supplies (whale oil initially, electricity later) was quite expensive. Did the citizens imagine that the costs would not be recovered from them in some other way...
The subject of the debate is traditionally called "universal goods", and was discussed by John Stuart Mill in the 1844 "Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy". There's a relevant quote from Book 5 Chapter 11 at http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/excerpt s/Mill.html
If you'd like to skip to the end of the debate, the common resolution is for the local community to pay for the "natural monopoly" component (in this case, the antenna farm) and allow any business to use the service provided to offer values-added services to customers. Any similarity to legal regiemes where one needs both an ISP and a cable provider is not accidental (:-))
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
That said, if the going thing is to prevent governmental operation in this area, then why not be consistent? Lets deregulate the snail mail industry. It's also an information delivery medium. I'm serious, most of the characteristics of modern mail were originally introduced by private mail companies in those few periods of history in which they were able to operate.
I agree, although I might not have put it that way!
A lot of people are of the incorrect opinion that "If I don't use it, why should I pay for it?" It's not as simple as that.
Everyone has to contribute to society as a whole, whether you personally make use of something or not. It's our responsibility as citizens if we want to live in a civilized society.
Roads are always a good example. Just because I never drive on 90% of the roads, why should I pay for that 90%? Because it would be too expensive for only people that use the roads to pay for them. Do you want to live in a city where all the roads are dirt?
Schools? I don't have any kids but some of my tax money goes to schools. Well, once upon a time I DID go to school, and it wasn't cheap putting me through it I'm sure. One day my kids will go through school if I have them. If only parents with kids had to pay school taxes, nobody would be able to afford to put their kids through school. Do you want to live in a society where no kids are getting even a basic education?
The same can be applied to Internet connectivity. The internet is quickly becoming a basic communications tool, and more important for doing business and staying competitive both on a business and individual level. If no internet provider is willing to provide access for your town or area, why shouldn't local government be allowed to provide this? It's for the better of the society, just like roads and education. Just because Joe Shmoe might never use it, a lot of people will, and it will improve the area's productivity in so many ways.
But you can't tell this to some people, they apparently don't have the capability to think past their own $5 in their pocket.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I certainly hope that the Lege doesn't make free access provided by NGOs illegal (imagine not being able to run your own AP out of your house!)
Austin Wireless City
Austin Free Net
Austin Wireless.Net
EFF Austin
Save Muni Wireless
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use. The service isn't "free", it is forced on all of the citizens who have to pay for it. ...funded with stolen money and then graciously provided as "free" by the politicians.
This argument could be used for anything. I never drive through your neighborhood, so wtf should I pay for maintenance on the road that goes past your house, or your fire and police protection?
Municipalities are run by elected officials. If you don't want to wait till the next election to vote out office holders you don't like, push for a bill that requires voter approval for cities to start offering these services. Boom, problem solved.
In addition, no private company can compete with a solution
That's what this bill is really about: government guaranteeing an industry's right to profit, which government has no business doing.
"The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use."
Like...Ambulance and Fire?
Or did you mean something else?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Our link has been mentioned once in this thread, but I want to highlight it. If you want to learn more about the battle to stop the anti-muni network provisions of HR 789, or (please! please!) if you are a Texan interested in helping to get this stopped, please visit our web site.
"The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use"
You conservatives are all alike. You complain about getting taxed for things saying you never use them, but get the advantage of things like having a publicly educated work force, the lower prices for having good road systems, safe water and reliable power (where it hasn't been deregulated like California), and if you say it's not worth it, try opening a business somewhere they aren't available.
You have to be ideologically idiotic to say that being able to email and use the internet for free anywhere in major metro areas would not be worth the trivial expense - and yes, it is trivial - Bush spent $40 million dollars just for his inaugural party this year. He could have wired Washington DC and all of Maryland for that money.
The gain in speed, productivity, and economic efficiency with a free wide area wireless internet would far outweigh the costs, and NO - you would not get the same benefit from a handful of mutually incompatible, competing, separate, for profit companies.
Looks like TxDOT is providing wireless Internet access at highway rest stops. Someone from the legislature better get a handle on those progressives over at the Highway Department! http://www.txdot.state.tx.us/txdotnews/026-2004.ht m
Sorry could not help the obvious rhyming flame bait:
Move to the coast before it is too late.
For the benefit of those of us who live outside the US of A, can someone explain why on earth someone would want to ban municipalities from offering services their citizens want? Surely it's up to the citizens of the municipality to democratically elect the representatives who offer to provide the tax/services package they want? If not, why not?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Texas is the home of the well-known and 'willing to compete in a fair market' (as long as they have a 100% stranglehold on the resources necesarry to enter the market) SBC.
I'm From Texas .
: ... Get this no question - I have attorney general opinons on this...in a case against regulating dangereous animal and dangereous dogs in The city of Richardson Tx. There is a difference.
The facts are
Texas Legislature meets for 3 months every other year and only get paid $50 and a free lunch per day. This limits the potential damage that could be done to rights of Texans as opposed full time legislatures who have nothing better to do then spend time thinking up all the wonderful things they can make the people do , while making more money than you and I put together (probably).
This partially explains why we have no state income tax.
Municipalites (local government - are Home ruled- (actually all but 2)) . In the Texas constitution - all power is reserved to the municipality unless a state Law SPECIFICALLY regulates it
I didn't like Texas at first , but once you lived here a while and you understand Texas , It is what America once was, freedom , individuality and rights; you would not want to live any where else.
I won't go to deeply in to it , suffice it To say , unless the Legislature specfically regulates wireless communication and forbids cities to own operate and implement wi-fi (and they better get it worded right because it takes 2 years to amend the law) Municipalities are going to Do whatever they want to . This is the government that is closest to the people and it has the authority under the Texas constitution to make its own laws that are not in conflict directly with state law.
( I know this as I'm fighting a traffic ticket - where State LAw DOES preempt Municipality ordinance)- But it's still a fight.
Oh when the Legislator gets home , he gets to explain why he voted for this bill to his constituents (me). Then he gets to look for another job in the community or try to run his business. again - This is why we have no income tax.
I understand all this may seem strange to people in other states who have had their rights and freedoms taken away before they were born. Growing up without rights, the actions of those who live by them, demand them and fight for them for theirselves and their children, may seem strange.
Living Free in a Texas Municipality !God Bless Texas
Texas HB789 is the actual legislation.
It's a broad deregulation bill, intended to deregulate Texas telephone companies. The "no municipal telecommunications services" section is at 54.202, "PROHIBITED MUNICIPAL SERVICES". But there is much more in there. Basically, Texas telcos would be offered the opportunity to opt out of being public utilities. They then get to do anything they want to do - raise rates, put additional confusing surcharges on bills, provide lousy service, etc. The "free market" is supposed to fix this.
It's amusing to see what regulations remain. Texas elected officials must be listed in the front of phone books. The state of Texas cannot be charged fees for late payment.
That link is broken
THe problem is the mass media has hip-mo-tized a large segment of America (maybe 40% or so of all Americans, which is large enough a voting block to maintain power). Whatever the talk radio tells them to think, that is pretty much what that think. Also, besides talk radio there is cable TV talk shows, and some are reached via newspapers and magazines.
Since about 1975 or so, the billionaires and corporations have spent a couple billion a year to fund large think tanks which basically come up with research and ideas about how to hip-mo-tize this segment of America. It works pretty well....
See more on this from links in my home page link above and my sig link below.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Which may come as a cynical statement, but America was founded on the notion of a society of rugged individuals who work in their own benevolent self interest. The notion of government providing a service which could otherwise be provided by the private sector (i.e., individual entrepreneurs, existing businesses, even the dreaded evil 'corporation') is allophatic to the notion of American democracy. History has shown time and time again that when government attempts to provide a service, they do it less efficiently, are less responsive to customer needs, and provide fewer features.
Local governments are particularly in focus because they are more likely to be corrupt (owing to the lack of oversight built in at the municipal level - take Atlanta for example), inept, and given to mob mentalities.
What kills me is that the history of public wifi started as individuals using low-cost wifi hardware to setup free access internet WANs, particularly in low income neighborhoods and on college campuses. Now everyone expects government to step in when corporations don't offer satisfaction. It's just begging for the tyranny of a nanny state.
working together to:
Kill ALL the JEWS!
Tutsis!
Armenians!
fill in the blank...
Fuck Government!
Thank you. I took the liberty to do so. Section 54.202 is pretty short and quite clear. The Texas legislature has decided to muzzle its citizens. Being from out of state, I'm not going to comment on whether or not thats a bad idea given what they have been exporting of late, but thats another issue.
Section 54.202 is relatively short but it does ban a municipality from "providing any information service, without regard to technology platforms", although they do seem to make an exception for any municipality that "leases" such a service.
Ironically, the law as written provides that municipal libaries may receive grants for telecommunications equipment (Section 57.047)even though it would illegal for them to use it (Section 54.202). The Texas state house is full of really crafty legislators!
This would almost certainly include any public notcies posted in any municipal building, unless the city pays a commercial entity to do the posting. Thus by a strict reading of the bill it would be illegal for any city employee to inform its citizens of an impending hurricane or other natural man-made distaster.
This might be a good thing as it would make it illegal for any city official to even post a press release. They would have to take their case door to door and do it by word of mouth. Ironically it would not stop any municipality from convincing their paying county officals or a local charitable ISP to set up such a system for them and then lease it back to them.
There is some relief for municipalities in the bill. As far as I can tell it specifies absolutely no penalties of any kind for failing to comply with this legislation.
I guess the legislators were so busy falling all over themselves to give business lobbists a break that they over looked the fact that this legislation as written (at least by my reading and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong) wouldn't send anyone to jail for anything. Its get out of jail free for the Enron types that seem to be so common in Texas.
One would image that more sane members the Texas statehouse would eliinate section 54.202 from the bill, but then anything that hobbles Texas is probably a good thing for the rest of us.
The bill as written prohibits municipalities from
providing any "information service" by whatever means.
It would be strictly illegal for them to call you, call a policeman or fireman to have them dispatched to your house, post a notice to a TV station to inform you that your house is on fire.
Hey don't get me wrong, its fine by me as I don't live in Texas, but it seems to me you value your ability to be an idealogue more than you value your own butt.
Well, being from Texas I feel an obligation to tell people how the Texas goverment works. The senate in Texas meets only on odd numbered years, and then only for 140 days. The governor of Texas has no power, except that of paroling convicts. The lieutenant governor is seen as having all the power. It is the lieutenant governor who decides what order new bills will be heard, who will be on what committee, and what bills will be voted on. The order in which bills are heard is very important since there are only 140 days to hear all of the bills. And guess what, if you don't play ball your bill never hits the senate floor.
The Texas constitution original intent was to prevent politicians from messing up Texas. But, the politicians learned how to stream line the process to compensate for short sessions.
As for public works, I wonder how Reliant Energy or TXU electric feel about the Tennessee Valley Authority. You know the Tennessee Valley Authority; the public works project; built during FDR presidency; provides cheap electricity; competes directly with big electric companies.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just an illiterate Texan. -_-
The wording in 502.44 also prohibits any "information service" as well as the other items mentioned.
./? Or am I just getting older faster than I care to?
It would be easier to direct you to this but it now seems that the original link to the bill is now missing (or have I failed to now find the post). I don't like to believe in conspiracy theories but have others noticed that links sometimes disappear on
Arrgh, I wish I had mod points *and* could boost you over 5.
Sorry the original post is still there, I'm just going blind.
Section 54.202 lines 15 and 16 read
" (3) any telecommunications or information service, without regard to platform used to provide the service."
One would think that the folks who buy and sell burglar alarms would go ballistic about this as it would make it illegal for any Texas city to inform municipal police that a signal from a burglar alarm has been activiated. They might be able to get the message from the alarm company but it would be illegal for them to use a city dispatcher to broadcast the information to cops on the beat, as technically such a call would constitute an "information service" owned by a municipality. Ironically, it would be legal if the city leased dispatching service from a third party. Rival companies could sue a city for doing so.
There appear to be no provisions in the bill indemnifying Texas citizens from losses due to such buglaries, but hey the telecos got what they wanted!
Thats what I love about the anti-government reactionaries, their own mentality works against them. The sad part is that it also works against everyone else.
there are two ways to pronounce nuclear, go to m-w.com.
The anti-muni provisions of Texas HR 789 will be highly harmful to Texans. It certainly will harm communities. How it harms any given community, however, will vary. Texas is a very big place.
In metro areas, such as Austin, wireless access is proving to be a mighty tool for economic development and for bridging the digital divide. These absolutely are causes of civic concern, and municipalities should be involved.
Here in Austin, for instance, the private Austin Wireless City project has been a leader in the drive to provide wireless access. The city has been involved, but it's mostly been logistical and organizational support, not funding. This sort of public/private partnership is good for people and good for business, but could be prohibited by HR 789.
In rural areas, the story is much grimmer. I hear that government shouldn't compete with private enterprise, but what if private enterprise isn't even showing up to compete? The broadband fiber isn't landing in the small towns, because SBC can't justify the buildout investment.
In the last century there was a big push for rural electrification. Internet access is the 21st counterpart. If these small towns don't get broadband access, they are going to find their economic options significantly limited and their quality of life impacted. These towns need the right to assure local infrastructure.
This issue is not about free lunches or something for nothing. It's about making sure citizens and markets determine what's right for our communities, and not the special interests of the incumbent communication providers.
If you live in Texas, please visit the Save Muni Wireless web site to learn more about the issue and what you can do.
The bill prohibits any municipalities from offering any ... "information service, without regard to technology platform used" (see 54.202 lines 15 & 16.
This comes later in the legislation and thus supercedes the definitional part that you refer to. So technically all of what you post is amended to specifically include such services into those that municipalities are not permitted to offer.
While the bill is meant to restrict telecommunication services it actually restricts much more. I'm sure the telecos know that they will have the public and cities by the short hairs, not to mention other potentially competing services such as ambulance, buglar alarm cos, etc. once current the wording passes.
Their lawyers are probably not as sleepy as joe public/politican. But hey, I have no particular objections to seeing Texans suffer, they've made the rest of us feel miserable enough for a lifetime.
This section is an affront to local control. Texans like local control. Replicans control Texas politics and in theory they like local control too. Remind them of that.
Texas residents should write their city governments asking them to intervene to ensure this provisions removal.
They should also write their state legislator directly. If the legislator is a Republican, remind him that local control is a Republican ideal.
I am concerned that even if this provision is removed, it may find its way back into the bill in a conference committee.
Fortunately, telecom reform is not one of the hot issues of the day, so if someone pulls that dirty trick late in the session, there won't be as much political hell to pay if lawmakers who are against it use stalling tactics to kill it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Here, the state bill prevents municipalities from acting as a service provider. That's a pretty broad category. For the purposes of lots of federal legislation, schools and libraries are considered service providers. Any municipal funds that schools and libraries recieve would be at risk from this.
Keep in mind, also, that there are a lot of uses that public service can make of a wireless network--(e.g. wireless data feeds to emergency reponse vehicles) this isn't just about consumer use. If a city thinks (and its voters agree) that it can do the job cheaper than a contract with a private provider, who is the state to say different? For all the "government is ineffecient" criticism being levelled at this idea, think about what this bill is--it's a government restriction coming down to the municiplities from on high--who is better to measure the municipal costs and benefits to a city? The local citizens and government, or the representatives of various counties and districts of a 270,000 square-mile state?
Also, if the citizens of a city want to use their taxes to fund a wireless network, they should be able to make that choice about their own local taxes and expenditures without some blanket restriciton from the state gov't.
You seem to be avoiding the fact that the government is the people. That's the way our pseudo-democracy works. Nothing is stopping a group of people in a city from getting together and offering it.
My neighbourhood in Cincinnati consistently gets together to offer public works projects to the neighbourhood. We have two parks and two green areas that are landscaped and maintained by the neighbourhood. Recently (a year ago) we decided it would be nice if we had large decorative pots that had small shrubs and greenery in them, so we rallied funds for them.
This is my zip code.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Kathy Grant, Time Warner-paid lobbyist of the Texas Cable and Telecommunications Association, buys the author of the bill, Phil King, his favorite espresso every time she gets. She's been pushing this bill BIG time.
It won't be easy though. According to a buddy of mine, they're already working on municipal wireless in McAllen and several of the surrounding colonias. I wrote Baxter and Barrientos myself arguing it wasn't fair to rural areas since it's not profitable for SBC, Cox, or Time Warner to build out there.
I just hope they don't have some fsckd up thing like a USF fee for broadband to rural areas. Talk about a huge corporate hand-out (on top of the existing ones...)
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
No free WiFi for you! is in the Houston Chronicle.
The best quote:
"Obviously, this needs to dropped into the folder marked 'Evil.'"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You can communicate by turning on the cold water when someone else is in the shower, so they will have to also ban all municipal plumbing.
Pretty stupid how greed can get people to pass selfish laws.
Texas is awesome so shutup.
Do you think that all Texans are blind Bush supporters?
Grow up.
You are wrong about the power lines being a good way to disseminate highspeed internet.
This has been discussed elsewhere.
Powerlines are insulated but not shielded and thus their use for transmitting highspeed data would bleed into the spectrum that many different radio bands use.
This would cripple AM radio.
fiber and coax are cheep. it is very easy to run a long fiber if their are few drops.
...cannot own their own guns freely like Texans can.
Because if you mean to imply that governments have better employment conditions, are more environmentally responsible, or do not produce harmful finished goods, I'd love to arrange a meeting so that I can laugh in your face.
Well said on the sports stadiums. WELL SAID.
F'in thank you.
Obviously some ComCast Ass is in this Bill.
TX - the state that WIPED OUT an independent brewing industry so BUD/MILLER etc. could keep selling piss
by the million gallon.
Could slashdot be a little more shallow on their regional stories - if they tried?
TX - the state that snuffed a high speed train plan because two lobbies cried:
1. roadside convenience and gas stores
2. the AIRLINES who would lose their commuter flights.
PS REad the 2004 Book: United States of Europe.
It really shows AMERICA its ASS.
PS BURN MICROSOFT BURN!!!!!!