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)."

Comments

State-run telco services have failed everywhere

[no parity]

Throughout Europe, telephone service used to be state-run. All of them have noticed how bad this system was and some are still in the progress of moving away from it.

This should be kept in mind when cheering for municipal wi-fi access.

Re:PDF of the Bill

[judonym]

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?

Re:Municipal WiFi is not free.

[TheRaven64]

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. 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:

There were in this country two very large monopolies. The larger of the two had the following record: the Vietnam War, Watergate, double- digit inflation, fuel and energy shortages, bankrupt airlines, and the 8-cent postcard. The second was responsible for such things as the transistor, the solar cell, lasers, synthetic crystals, high fidelity stereo recording, sound motion pictures, radio astronomy, negative feedback, magnetic tape, magnetic "bubbles", electronic switching systems, microwave radio and TV relay systems, information theory, the first electrical digital computer, and the first communications satellite. Guess which one got to tell the other how to run the telephone business?

This is the truth.

[cbreaker]

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.