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)."
This should be kept in mind when cheering for municipal wi-fi access.
A town just down the street here is running fiber optics to every house/business. Isn't that just cool? Its going to atract a lot of business, and be light years ahead of the surrounding towns. I'm already looking into moving there :) Why shouldn't that be allowed? So some company can make money off outdated infrastructure? No company has a *right* to profit.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
It does seem to ban municipalities from offering any kind of telecommunication or network services.
Another section that caught my attention was the description of "Political Subdivisions" to include any community with over 275 access lines. People often speak about government as if it's some detached body that's unnecessary and useless, but maybe it's good to remember that government at its best is really just a bunch of neighbours working together to achieve some goal.
This bill is government at it's worst, creating unnecessary limits to protect the interests of corporations. I know Texas is pretty far gone, but this can't possibly pass with those sections can it? Is there any real benefit to taking those options away from communities?
Maybe. That's the thing about infrastructure though - the cost / benefit thing isn't quite so clear cut. Perhaps the government shouldn't be responsible for roads. After all, not everyone uses them, and so people could just pay for the ones they use. Except that having decent roads makes it easier for people to get around, which has a knock-on benefit on all businesses in the area. Since these businesses have a greater turn-over, they can pay more taxes.
Ubiquitous internet access is the modern equivalent of an efficient rail system. Without it, it is very difficult for an area to be competitive - both businesses and wealthy individuals will move away.
And speaking for the UK, privatisation has been a get-rich-quick scheme for the government. Selling off capital infrastructure has been used to make up for budget shortfalls. This delayed tax increases (yay! More votes). A prime example of this was British Rail, which was sold off under the last Conservative government. Since then, service has got far worse - in the last 5 years I have not been on a single train journey in this country that has arrived on time, my last trip took 5 hours (and was supposed to take 3) - and the taxpayer is still paying for it. Every year, the government allots several hundred million pounds to shoring up the infrastructure, while investors in the rail companies receive dividends.
Any service which is essential to a nation (or municipality) remaining competitive should be accountable to the people of that nation. As a parting thought, I will leave you with the following quote from the BSD fortune file:
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What if a city wants to put up 5 or 6 wireless access points in areas that are frequented by tourists and business travelers? Let's say that they could do it for a few thousand dollars a year. That may be worth it if it makes the city more attractive to visitors. Those visitors spend money and pay hotel taxes. The city is happy and the visitors are happy. But, this bill would prohibit the city from doing this, even though municipal wireless system like this makes a lot of sense. I just think that you haven't considered just how broad this bill is. It bans a city from providing network services. Period. There are some ideas for municipal wireless systems which are probably not good ideas. But why can't they let the municipalities make those decisions?
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
Ya know while to some extent I agree with you, I do have a few points I need to counteract...
First the state government shouldn't restrict local government from being able to build any sort of communications network (which this does). Heck they shouldn't even stop them from being an ISP if that's what the people want... Maybe you don't really deal with local government much, but I have... Local government is a meeting of all concerned citizens and (normally) everyone gets their say ya or nay... If everyone does agree they want free wifi or say broadband service why shouldn't they be able to build it through the local government?
Second the 'f Wi-fi is important enough to enough people then it will get built' is funny. I see thsi all the time with broadband. Markets of over five thousand people which are ignored by phone and cable providers and who can't realistically use Satelite services (want to sometimes play a game online or do some other similiar activity). Business could care less about them. Their best option is to create their own, but they are much better off getting municipal broadband started then creating their own business (or attempting to at least). Not everyone has the skills to do that sort of business or the right knowledge to do it correctly. The local government in those cases makes far more sense as a facilitator than having to start a bussiness to create such services does...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
And just how many times does a word have to be mentioned in a bill before it becomes meaningful? Actually the bill appears to ban municipalities from offering network services of any kind, including wireless.
You are obviously very familiar with the bill, and it's hard not to conlcude that you have an interest in misleading people about what it will do. Do you?
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. -