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.
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 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
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
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.
One thing about the neo-cons, multinational corporations, and megopolists that run this country - they don't want the government to interfere with their "business plans", but are damn quick to seek a government handout in the form of tax credits, specially created tax loopholes, or outright grants & subsidies to their
businesses.
The telecos have been quick to complain about local government (Philadelphia comes to mind here) competeing with their "markets", but have not been willing to spend their money to provide the level of services requested by those same localities. Since the breakup of "Ma Bell", the regional "Baby Bells" have been under more relaxed Federal regulations, as well as some level of regulation by the states. The state regulatory boards have not been doing a very good job of making certain that the regional telcos have been providing a uniform level of service to their citizens. OTOH, most counties have enough regulatory power over the cable companies by granting temporary county monopolies that DTV and broadband Internet access has flourished. A temporary grant of monopoly status along with specific goals and guidelines for improved digital service seems to work well with the cable companies.
That being said, Dubya and his neo-cons, as well as the WTO and World Bank, have used other countries debt service as a means of forcing the
opening of their public utilities to foreign/multinational corporate competition. The provision of clean potable water has become a new "profit center" for the World Bank's corporate allies. Invariably, the quality of service has gone down, municipal workers layed off, and the
price of clean water has gone through the roof.
Some services, such as potable water, should be deemed too important a "human right" to turn over to a foreign multinational corporation for profit.
Sec. 51.002. DEFINITIONS.
(2) "Basic local telecommunications service" means:
Notice item (E) in the list. A telecom provider provides access to 911 service, among several other things. Notice the word "and" before item (H). It is important. A telecom provider connects you to 911, but 911 is not a telecom provider any more than a firetruck is.
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
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.
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
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. -