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:State-run telco services have failed everywhere

[91degrees]

In Hull, England, the telephone service was run by the local Authority. They had free local calls since 1904, broadband ADSL before anyone else had heard of it, and they've had ADSL based TV for several years now.

States are large and tend to get overly beurocratic, but smaller governmental organisations often run things rather well.

Re:PDF of the Bill

[Nebu]

If I didn't read TFA, what makes you think I'm gonna read some governmental bill?

Municipal WiFi is not free.

[cowboy76Spain]

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.

I think the true reason /.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.

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).

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?

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:relevant section: 54.202

[Bent Mind]

Umm, wouldn't this ban Internet in public schools? Or are schools state owned and not run by a municipality?

Re:relevant section: 54.202

[mattspammail]

Tough one to give a straight answer on. Most of the school districts in Texas are independently operated. There are dozens in the Houston area alone. There also exist other types of school districts. One in the area is a municipal school district (Stafford, near Houston). The overseers, or school board, members in an independent school district are voted in. They are not run by a municipality. However in the case of Stafford MSD, the policy makers of the school district are, in fact, the local government. It's not the norm, but it will definitely need to be addressed before a law like this is passed. They'll need a small print area.

And SBC corporate headquarters is located in...?

[Eternal Vigilance]

Oh, that's right - San Antonio, Texas. What a coincidence!

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:

"...all public policy must be driven by free-market principles..."

"Sec.A54.202. PROHIBITED MUNICIPAL SERVICES. A municipality or municipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public:
(1) a service for which a certificate is required;
(2) a service as a network provider; or
(3) any telecommunications or information service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service."

And removed from the existing code:
"It is the policy of this state to ensure that customers in all regions of this state, including low-income customers and customers in rural and high cost areas, have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services, cable services, wireless services, and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at prices that are reasonably comparable to prices charged for similar services in urban areas."

Roughly translated:

1. Government exists to maximize corporate profits. (When we talk about "free-market" consumers, understand we mean it in the same sense as "free-range" chickens.)

2. Citizens are prevented from organizing and offering any telecommunications service that would allow them to use their economies of scale to threaten corporate profits.

3. You'll pay whatever we want to charge you for whatever service we feel like providing, and you'll like it, since you're prevented from defending yourselves by organizing your own public service to compete with us when we ream you.

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 /., or our only place in the "free market" will be plucked and hanging upside down.)

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.