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.
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)
This should be kept in mind when cheering for municipal wi-fi access.
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 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.
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.
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.
I know of no law preventing someone from giving away what is theirs. 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. In addition, no private company can compete with a solution that is funded with stolen money and then graciously provided as "free" by the politicians. This bill is depriving no one of personal freedom, but is trying to do precisely the opposite and protect the personal freedom of citizens to choose how to spend their own money.
Seriously, if Wi-fi is important enough to enough people then it will get built. I would love to see wi-fi access in my community, but I don't want to have it paid for by a bunch of extra taxes--in response to another poster: how exactly is robbing others in your community to pay for your addiction to good wifi (hey, I'm addicted too) being "neighborly"? Do you people consider the thousands in these communites who don't even own a computer and who will derive absolutely no benefit from this government-mandated service? No one is going to turn down an opportunity for profits and if the telco won't build it, then maybe some enterprising individual will. Perhaps it will take the form of a co-operative where participants provide access by connecting a public AP to their broadband in exchange for access to the network. That's fine, so long as it isn't being treated as another "government" benefit.
This is from the crowd that (rightfully, IMHO) won't trust the FBI/CIA/NSA to read their e-mail but expects the government to provide magically free wireless that comes with no strings attached? One more thing that you seem to miss is that with higher-speed wireless with much wider range on the horizon, a wifi network with hundreds of nodes might be a million dollar waste in 3 years time. Corporations tend to be more careful with money that is their own than governments do with their budgets and maybe the telcos see no point in investing billions across the nation in networks that are being made obsolete as we speak.
I have come here to chew memory and kick ass... and malloc() is returning a null pointer.
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.
when did the brits start wearing stars and stripes on the shoulder patch ?
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
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
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
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
"The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use." Internet access is a part of the infrastructure system. Without a decent infrastructure businesses do not get built or flourish. It is perfectly reasonable to have goverment provide it since in the end it helps the citizens. I suppose you could wait for the private sector to build roads, water and sewer systems as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Heck the SBC near me won't even consider offerering DSL where I am because they can't make a profit fast enough to put a small DSLAM in the remote box. I even offered to pay for the parts, but instead of giving me a real price for a small 24 port dslam (~$1500) they claim it costs $300,000 to a million to offer me DSL. No the private sector is NOT the answer to every problem since their goals are quite simply profit and not whats best for the community.
What if the local government wants to set up wireless access because a majority of it's citizens has asked for it?
What if the government got a donation from some third party to pay for it?
If the people want it, why shouldn't the local government be able to provide it?
Government *is* supposed to mostly do what the people want, isn't it?
And to say that if enough people want something, it will get built, is a load of bull$shit. A perfect example- I live in a community of roughly 30,000 people, and we cannot get DSL access, even though all of the surrounding towns can. Why? Because SBC has limited resources and is building out their network in other, more lucrative, markets first. There's great demand in my town, but SBC has decided that there's *more* demand somewhere else. Too bad for us. By the time SBC gets around to my town, there probably won't be as much demand, which will likely bump us even lower on the list. Businesses have limited resources, and of course will go where the profit potential is highest- nothing wrong with that. But don't try to say that "if people want it, some one will provide it". That's BS and most people know it...
The dry fish swims alone.
If the world is really heading into a direction where people interact with their goverment/municipal offices through electronic channels, then those channels must be available to all citizens. The only was to guarantee that access is not only the privilege of the rich is to allow municipals to build networks -- if they think this is the only way to ensure that all citizens can equally access their services.
:-). If there is a problem with municipals unnecesarily building expensive networks from taxpayer dollars, then, and only then should a bill like that be considered. And even then, the bill should address the _source_ of the problem, and not some superset of the problem's source.
It may even be cheaper for the taxpayers to keep up the network and offer governemnt services through this network than to keep up the conventional offices.
Also as a sidenote: a law never gives you more freedoms than you had before that law (well maybe if the new law is weakening a previous one
Two good exmaples of government facilitating infrastructure are electricity and telephone service. A similar situation existed, where companies had no incentive to provide those services to the rural areas of teh US (which were much more extensive than today), so the government stepped in to provide a way to get those services to those areas. The Rural Electrification Act created electrical cooperatives (amonsgts other things) that bought power from utilities and ran the infrastructure to their members. Toda, a lot of people in very urban areas still get their power from their EMC (or some variation on that name). Sure, it took tax money, but I think most people wouyld agree that it provided hugh benefits to everyone.
While looney libretarians (but I'm redundant there) may believe that free enterprise can solve every problem, the reality is that it will only provide what is profitable.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Fine. Then the law should be reworded to say exactly that, as opposed to singling out WiFi.
I pay for expensive sports stadiums that I never enter, for pampered, overpaid teams that I don't like. To add insult to injury, I have to pay again if I choose to view the welfare jocks in action.
A municipal WiFi implementation is probably the least obtrusive use of tax dollars - you don't have to sieze someone's land using 'eminent domain' to provide the service. It allows people to make use of the public radio spectrum without carving it out and selling it to the highest bidder.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
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. -
"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
Well I should respond to this on another few key points...
The first is to your last response. Government may only give tax money to a program like that, but it has some key things random individuals in a area might not have. Namely organization, contacts with existing business interests in the area, and better understanding of the area in general. It's also much easier for a government to get better deals on loans and other short term solutions needed while creating a network. If I wanted to do a setup a broadband ISP bussiness in my town I'd need all of those and more. I'd also have to get the municipalities permission if I was going to physically run lines and since phone and cable lines are 'owned' by those groups I'd have to do that or go wireless (I live in a naturally hilly area though so wireless is short ranged at best).
If their was an already existing business that wanted to setup broadband access then your idea works. But in most cases their is no business like that in these places. That leaves it to the people of those areas and frankly I doubt they could do it without involving the local government the way things stand. I know from personal experience my town never could. See I know because I tried. I spent a year workign out what was needed to create a local broadband infrastructure for my town of 5000. When I was done the cost was huge and frankly no one would loan me or anyone else with the experience and desire to do this the money required. So I asked the local government for help. They had access to better loans than me, wouldn't be turned down by the banks like I would, and had resources for all the things I found hard to get... Unfortunately they had zero interest in doing anything to help me start such a thing and stated they were happy waiting for Verizon and Time Warner to decide we were ready...
That was five years ago. TW and Verizon (even before they were Verizon) had told us almost 3 years before that about hwo theyed roll out broadband 'soon'. Last year Time Warner did get their act together and now we do have a broadband solution, but it only covers the town itself. Verizon can cover areas that TW can't with their DSL services, but they gutted our local loops nearly 5 years ago when they became Verizon and only selective 're-upgrade' our local loops to the CO to support DSL. That means for instance that because they don't think my section of town (near the edge of the city) is a valuable enough market to rewire our neighborhood loop to provide DSL even after they 'enabled' DSL at the CO. They also ignore the outlying areas that they could support, but don't feel it's worth doing. That means they only go where TW goes, and then not even to all the places TW does go. Hence currently I use TW.
Now you live in a very different place, though less than 10 miles away from us their is a town much like yours. The dynamics of a college town are much much different though. If I'm upset about how my local government uses my tax money I can go to the house of any councilman or the mayor and demand an answer. Most often they will even give me one! Some far off company that doesn't even want to put an local office (TW's closest office is 10 miles away, Verizon's closest office is 21 miles away) in my town, don't inspire the same level of confidance in me as my local government does. In a town this size the local government has to give their best as they are accountable to all their neighbors and they know it! The companies just really don't care at all on the other hand...
Looking back I wish the local government hadn't turned me down. In that time the two biggest businesses localy both closed. One was a woodworking company that had been here since this town was a lumber town. The other was a custom fiber glass comapny that had a hand in making parts for the hubble space telescope. Both lost market to other better equiped areas and nothing has replaced them because their is no insentive for a new company to come here. Broadband is primitive and selective, we aren't
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
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.
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.