Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Muni Broadband Bills Country Wide
Ant writes "Broadband Reports says that 14 and possibly more states that have or will pass(ed) bills banning community-run broadband. Free Pass shows a map breakdown of the states while Tallahassee.com takes a look at a newly proposed bill in Florida, backed by Sprint, BellSouth, Verizon, and Comcast, designed to bog down the muni-development process."
...it's all about the MONEY!
Here in the Land of The Free (i.e. Western Europe), we allow our local/community governments to do what the electorate want them to do.
Aren't we naive....
If there was as much money in building and running "Community Clubs" I'd wager the big corps would try taking over the basketball courts and hockey rinks. All so the locals have more choice, you know.
Trolling is a art,
Cable companies fought for and won laws that banned community run Cable TV type systems back in the early days of cable.
there used to be "community tv" or basically a neighborhood TV antenna setup. the would all get together and buy one large tower and good antennas as well as equipment to send the signal to the homes. these were made illegal in most places by cable tv companies in the area or coming into that area.
I know, my father used to set these up for smaller communities.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
A good compromise would be to ban municipal wireless internet access unless no provider has established a commercial wireless internet access within 2 years.
Why can't the communities register broadband companies and run them in a style similar to mutual societies or worker's co-operatives?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
From TFA: "A bill limiting Internet offerings by government entities is back for legislative consideration..."
No rest for the weary. Even if its voted down, it will just come back at the next opportunity. That is why we don't get tired or frustrated, we stand strong and casually vote this crap down as many times as we have to.
Obviously community internet will lead to community controlled media eventually squeezeing out cable/phone and every other communication medium. I don't blame the companies one bit. But I will blame the government if they let this happen.
Community-backed broadband isn't the way we want to go. That sort of stuff is basically anti-capitalist at heart. Really. These companies might look like they're in it for the money, but really, they have our best interests at heart. Seriously. I promise.
Oh, and Saddam really did have all those weapons. Honest. I swear.
Well, I certainly see the point in banning community-run broadband. Makes tons of sense, I mean, especially as usage agreements wouldn't stop that where the ISP don't want the user to share his access outside of the property.
But on the other hand, it doesn't affect me, as I'm not in the bloody usa =)
but on the other hand, I don't like rules that forbid a municipality from doing something which could benefit its citizens.
While in the vast majority of instances, it might be appropriate to ban a city from setting up its own ISP, there might be a few towns which are being ignored.
We have towns like that in my northern state. My father lives in a town with no broadband, heck, with NO local dial-up! To say that city can't set up its own ISP is ludicrous. The private sector has had decades to set up something but they've failed to even take notice. The city should be able to take action "for the common good" to set up its own.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Ah, yes. The free-market system, unfettered from legislative "regulations". Behold its efficiency! Marvel at its ability to out-compete any misguided "Big government" attempts to duplicate that which the market can provide!
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Do you call this good? While I'm not 100% in support of community run networks (mostly due to the fact that there aren't enough smart people to run them securely in most communities), I think this illustrate the point quite well that governements no longer have power, the businesses do. After all, who has the most money? Your governments (state local and federal) or businesses? Considering the huge debt at the federal level and the deficits at state and local levels, my money (hehehe) is on the businesses controlling the most funds. And they say we have "big government", hah! It seems that during the past decade, as the tech sector has grown tremendously and gained the most wealth in a short time, more and more "laws and legal decisions" have been bought by them. We are headed rapidly for the corporate feudal system with our governments being democracies only in name. Wake up... we're only a few steps from complete fascism.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Community is communism. In capitalism we trust.
I don't need a signature.
.. correct me if im wrong , but isnt bringing anti competitive legislation to stop competition (even if it is run by local gouverments) anti competitive in of itself. Yes reading that makes my head sping too. If the city wants to provide free or cheap broadband to its citizens then what is wrong with that , if the companys wish to compete they should have to offer something which the competition doth not. I would far rather have a state run monopoly on services , as atleast then i do have some say over the board of directors via a vote. Aslong as the gouvernment plays fair there is no reason why they should be disalowed to compete
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I seriously question the sanity and uncorruptability of whoever dreamed up this telco wet dream of a bill. At any rate, I see long legal battles up ahead, followed by more stories about how this bill is being used to strongarm small communities into paying up the ass to the same companies as get mentioned in the article. When will some kind of authority bring these companies that lobby for legislation to only benefit themselves and at the same time stifle any kind of good initiatives for the normal citizens?
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
because of the content.
I take it the community run networks back then tapped into a content source somewhere.
So they do now, but the reason used for hammering down on todays networks are not due to using illegally, but instead using legally at the expense of corporate america, now that has become a crime in itself.
of course there are several angles to it here that the lobbyist seek support for:
* the corporations pay taxes to the Government, which the Gov use to ruin their business by providing free services. (though, they probably don't really pay taxes anymore do they?
* free uncontrolled internet is hard to control and can be abused for destruction. (though, so can much else)
The bill in the works for Texas would kill not only municipal internet service but could be used to shut down municipal web sites, information channels, etc. "Information" services is a large amount of stuff to block with a single piece of legislation.l
http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=TXbil
Under the bill, municipalities and municipal electric utilities would be prohibited from providing, directly or indirectly, alone or in partnership with other service providers, either "telecommunications" or "information" services as those terms are defined under federal law.
These laws make about as much sense as a law that prohibits a government from maintaining a highway system. A government, with its existing rights of way and networks, is in a prime position to build out computer networks, particulary in places where corporations don't feel they can make a profit. I'm really really tired of libertarian arguments that don't take into account all the hidden and structural subsidies that alter the landscape of the supposedly Utopian Adam Smithian Capitalist Marketplace that they claim to want to protect. True capitalism of this sort means that only the strong survive - your next door neighbor with a gun. So it's not communism when a government decides to do something - we're a community, we live together, and if our governments want to build infrastructure that benefits everyone, let them!
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
It's sad that basically these companies are trying to preserve their virtual monopolies on broadband service instead of attempting to work with communities to develop large scale community wide broad band solutions.
A company such as SBC should really be playing both sides here as they could still charge for a fat pipe to be run a town. The difference being that a municipality has the money to subsidize the pipe and basically sell the bandwith to residents at a loss. SBC makes it's money albeit slightly less than if they were to provide service to each household but money none the less.
We'll see what happens, but I'm seriously considering asking some of my neighbors to get together to lease a line from SBC and then set up a community router. It will save all of us money and I'll finally be able to get a decent connection without interference from the 8 other routers my laptop can connect to.
This is what I don't understand. How can you sit back and trust your local or state government to deliver this service? They cannot even administer the e-rate program without lots of expensive fraud, usually due to corruption. In most cases the e-rate contract winners have a connection (usually relatives) with the local city/county administator.
While I think the telcoms are annoying and some really set out to block competition I find the idea of a government run wireless repugnant. If your lucky it might be good for a year. However someone will start digging and we will see all sorts of wasted money, nepotism, and rules that just crank the costs up quickly. Suddenly this low cost solution starts to cost more, but only for those of certain income brackets.
Wireless IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE. Sewer, Electricity, and Phone are. Cell, cable, broadband, and similar are not.
Who is going to pay for the access granted for free to designated "depressed / disenfranchised groups"? Who is going to provide them equiment? Who is going to manage it?
Sorry, at least with the businesses I have a choice. With a government entity there is usually no accountability. A government will fine and penalize an abusive corporation but they will NEVER do that to themselves.
Get over your selfishness, you do not deserve free broadband, especially when it has to come from someone else's income.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Someone in the city starts an ISP, and the city gives them a huge contract for something trivial, and the ISP uses the money for community broadband.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
GOD.. R... T... F... A...!!!
It's stopping local governments from doing it!
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
No idea why I feel the need to respond to a AC Troll post, but its that kind of morning so I will. Like every country, the US has different problems where corporate, government and common people butt heads, but for the most part we do have Liberty and Freedom. As a whole an individual can do great things here and live a great life. I'm sure this AC must live in some unknown Utopia where everything goes right for everyone all of the time. Wake up and smell the real world. There are goods and bads in every country and the US has plenty of the former to make up for the latter.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
If these laws take hold everywhere then the deployment of advanced services will just take their time. And places that none of those companies plan to service will never be able to provide these services to their communities.
Personally I doubt they care about little towns they fear big cities like pittsburg and atlanta wiring themselves. They're trying to protect their top 100 or top 200 markets.
In my small town of Spencer, IA we have a municipal provider of electricity, cable TV, phone, and broadband.
Phone costs $10.50/mo per line.
Basic Cable costs $5.00/mo
3Mbit/sec broadband costs $27.50/mo.
Not to mention some of the lowest electric rates in the state.
The reason we did this was because the local cable company had spent decades gouging on the prices on cable and having crappy service and we finally had enough of it and built our own system.
Mediacom still is around, but now charging fair prices. This municipal effort INCREASED COMPETITION, breaking the monopoly the phone and cable companies enjoyed for so many years.
I'm a firm believer in Municipal Utilities, if you have the chance to write a letter to your congresspeople by all means do it now.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
That would be socialism, and that would be double-plus ungood.
(Same thing happened 2 years ago in France, a wireless operator in the south got its ass sued into oblivion by France Telecom because it set up a simple wireless network for small villages)
Why can't the communities register broadband companies and run them in a style similar to mutual societies or worker's co-operatives?
easy- because that doesn't generate revenue for the 100 companies that run america
On the one hand, while I think government should stick to its primary mission, they can build a network if they want to.
However, it just doesn't seem wise to give away free access when companies are putting in money to build up a network. The profit motive, for good and ill, is how things progress. If it is an area which will get zero service, that is one thing. But for areas which have companies investing capital, I don't think the long-term consequences of this will be good.
Governments should stick to keeping the peace, maintaining the roads, and regulating monopolies when appropriate. Building networks for their entire population is beyond the competence of government. In my home area of Philadelphia, I can just imagine the decisions that will be made due to croynism and corruption. I'm sure it will be a beautifully designed and run network.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Why wasn't the open source community and friends organized enough to get to these legislators and persuade them to support bills specifically permitting municipal broadband before the corporations began to act in their own self interest?
It is all well and good to wait until something bad happens and then wag your finger, but that never accomplishes anything.
Rather than whine after-the-fact, why doesn't the open source community learn how the game is played and start working toward its own self interest? Why isn't the community raising money for its candidates? Why isn't the community trying to sell its point here? (Come on, folks: Free Broadband versus $50 a month ought to be an easy sell. The cable and phone companies aren't exactly popular.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I know I'm might be a little bit off topic here, but I can't help to think about the fall of communist Russia when I hear all these "corporate-protectionist" news. Extremes are BAD, wether they are to the right or to the left, up or down.
The USA is going too far in protecting their "corporate" society, and this will eventually mean its very own collapse.
Extreme capitalism will kill itself as Extreme communism killed itself.
Unfortunately the average american is very much distracted by the war against terrorism to even notice this.
Not funny, more like +1 Insightful/Informative
Really. No way on earth I'd ever move there, too many f*cked up laws, and just as many f*cked up values.
Is there any sort of group that's collecting names in support of voting out these bills? Someone that tracks who voted for them to begin with? I'd like to vote against these people in my own state and I'd like to let them know why I'm voting against them.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
There are only a lucky few who happen to be in residential buildings or hotels who are near the repeaters. For the most part, any residential on the parkway is going to be a high priced condo. So in reality, wireless is not very accessible here yet.
When coverage expands to Washington Square, South Philadelphia and Northern Liberties it will finally be a practical solution to those $100 Verizon phone bills (for basic phone + DSL).
The government is the people. If the people don't want businesses offering a service, surely it's up to them. I don't think the governmnet should be protecting people from other parts of government.
While out here in utah, they're tearing up the streets as fast as they can to lay fiber for the new Utopia Network! (Except in provo, where they want to have their /own/ network, apart from the rest of the state. loosers.)
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
As an employee of one of the listed companies, I don't care whether you use a municipal broadband connection or not. But don't complain to me when all you can get is analog cable or regular dial-up phone service in your neck of the woods. No company is going to want to invest in a town where the government maintains an internet, television, or telephone network.
Where we have Click as a part of our Public utilities. They also provide internet through 3rd party isps, noticably missing is Comcast.
Odd though that the city spent the money on laying all that cable and Comcast is still allowed to play here, not that I can see how anyone with any sense would want to pay more to send that money out of the state.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
When you have businesses having a lot of control in the legislative branch, you know it's not good. The corporations get done what's in their best interest. You say they have a right to protect themselves? No, they are not people. People are people.
While I like the idea of giving everyone access to the internet, is it a good idea to get the government involved? Would the FCC come in and censor my precious porn if everyone payed for and had access to the internet?
Maybe I am a little greedy with my internet....
I've found that a lot of engineers and programmers have trouble forming coherent sentences. It's as if many of them think in a way that doesn't lend itself to making smoothly flowing sentences.
This isn't exactly a revelation, as we've known for years that engineers make horrible PR spokespeople, and smooth talkers usually make horrible engineers.
It's not just that they don't want municipalities competing against them -- they don't want groups competing against them who have open books.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And it is better where exactly? It might be easier for companies to rip their customers a new one in the States but are you so naive to think that it is different in Europe?
According to this, Indiana (my oh-so-flat state) has killed the proposed legislation.
"On Feb. 16, the Local Government Committee killed House Bill 1148. The bill, championed by SBC Communications, would have prohibited Indiana cities and towns from providing municipal broadband services."
At least someone sees the danger. That, or maybe my congressman is paying too much for broadband like the rest of us.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People still don't seem to have quite figured out the rules of capitalism.
To be free, you must be able to choose, and to be able to choose, you must have options, and be informed of your options.
Commerce controls the media, they control your perspective, thus limit the options you're most likely to choose from.
And the only options given to you, are options that make money to those giving you the options.
Basically, the only freedom we will have left eventually is to buy or die.
And it will pass because that is still considered a 'free choice' (between those two).
There really needs to be a -1 Strawman or -1 Non Sequitur mod.
What if you had a kid and wanted him or her to be educated?
Oh, yeah, and our government is certainly doing a stellar job of that. :-\
So you only believe in homeschooling?
Ever hear of private schools?
The internet is an excellent resource and should be made available to everyone at affordable rates. The private sector can't be relied on to bring this amazing resource to everyone's door. Now we just need to get a local government sponsored used PC drive going.
Yeah not sure why I am replying to an AC troll either...but I can speak for most when I say we are gload you don't live here either....value boy...Mr moral....oh mighty supreme foreign dude...LOL
What a dork.
what?
I don't get the dreamy types who want the government to run something technical? Most people on /. are bloody paranoid about government abuse of power, spying, etc. Why on EARTH would you want the government building a muni network?
Personally, I think muni networks stifle innovation. Sure, there are the exceptions, but on the whole, most muni networks are a day late and a dollar short. Who wants their local network run by a committee that hasn't ANY CLUE about technology? Worse, they'll hire some crooked contractor to administer the thing, and offer incentive-based pay to keep costs as low as possible. I've seen government contracts like these, and they frequently accomplish the opposite of what they were intended, and the politicians who are responsible are long gone by the time the full effects are felt.
Which would you rather have? 3 or 4 companies vying to offer broadband? A little competition, different features, upgrades every few years? Or a local government that bought a white elephant from the lowest bidder? And then have it governed by a group of politicians who are non-technical glory hounds, probably bought off by the white elephant equipment vendor?
Hmmm. Tough choice.
Do you really want your next door neighbors telling the city that they don't want anymore upgrades because they don't care? Or would you rather vote with your pocketbook and choose from a selection of providers?
-- No sig for you!
...have a problem with government controlling access to the Internet? Anyone at all?
I know this is Slashdot and we're supposed to hate big buisiness and everything, but isn't government-provided Internet access just a bad idea? First off we have the fact that government can always undercut the opponent and hide the costs in taxes; few will ever complain. So clearly there's the risk that in the end we'll end up paying even more for broadband than we used to. Second, once government is involved, this throws the door wide open for "concerned mothers" to start lobbying for state-, county-, or city-wide controls on the content. You know how draconian those content filters are at government-run schools? In all likelihood these will go on municipal broadband offerings, too.
If it's like any other government service, it will be poorly and insecurely run, slow to respond (for instance, blocking ports to stem the spread of viruses), and twice as expensive as anything else. And by the time it's in, we'll be stuck with it for the rest of eternity (Amtrak, anyone?).
No comment.
Wireless IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE. Sewer, Electricity, and Phone are. Cell, cable, broadband, and similar are not.
Since when do you need those things to live? All the things you mentioned are luxuries.
Food and water are required to live. A phone is just a luxury that makes for an easy way to communicate. Electricity runs appliances that make your life easier. People used outhouses or septic systems before there were sewer systems.
The things you mentioned are taken for granted nowadays, but they are not necessities.
I don't really understand the hue and cry from folks on this forum to have their broadband run by the a local government. Aren't you just trading one monopoly (the telco's and cable company) for another (the municipality)? In the latter case, it strikes me that you don't have the choice not to pay the government, where as if the telco and/or cable company sucks, you can decide not to pay them, which gives them an incentive to at least make sure that there service doesn't suck too bad. But with the gov't I don't see what incentive they'll have to provide good services. You're legally required to pay your taxes whether the service is good or bad.
Personally, where I live, I wouldn't mind seeing the gov't reeled in a bit. That way that can't force my neighbor (who is happy as a clam w/out broadband) to subsidize my broadband. If my broadband provider starts to suck, I'd like the option of not subsidizing someone else's broadband. I don't see any way to do this latter part if it's run by a gov't.
For a group of people strongly opposed to monopolies (e.g. micorosft), I don't really understand why you'd prefer to have some other monopoly (e.g. the local gov't) running your lives.
Is there something obvious that I'm missing?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Fox News presents an alternative viewpoint (for the media) and it makes so many people hysterical. Some of the posters online are obsessed with hating it. There's some out there where I think I could kidnap and kill their children, and they'd still hate FNC more than me.
.. am I breaking the law? It is a community based broadband network after all.
And when does a gov't get the cajones to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own community when it comes to communications? This should be a free speech issue period.
..blah...blah.
Communication. It's what people do. Animals also to an extend. Only bushes and shrubs have no idea what it is. Communication will be free / at cost. It's too weak as a business case even right now. Now stupid regulations can change that. Those who learn slow, never understood the telecom bust.
Word.
its pathetic. you stupid idiots wont be happy until you control all media
ps if you guys love saddam so much why dont you just move to iraq? Just curious. At least you have the internet here , stop complaining.
IANAAmerican, maybe it's different there, but why not have your government run it's own ISPs?
It can't be any worse than the average huge transnational corporation, and it's not like they're going to be able to outlaw competition, without starting a revolution anyway.
What if back in the 1920's laws were passed to ensure that public electrical projects couldn't be setup to compete with private industry?
We wouldn't have had the TVA, BPA and Rural electrification. Many rural areas would probably still be without electricity.
Interestingly enough, the Bush admin wants to get rid of the BPA (Bonneville Power Admin) that runs the dams in the Northwest. Doing so will amount to a 30% rate increase for electric customers in the Northwest. So much for the free market...
1.) This legislation is despicable.
2.) Don't take my word for it. Listen to Prof. Lessig's first podcast for a thoroughly considered explanation of why this is not in our best interest.
Oh, that's right. The government.
Who maintains them? Oh, that's right, the taxpayers.
Who makes money off them? Well, lessee: there's UPS and FedEX and the USPS and many small shipping companies and Greyhound and...
Who makes money off the cable network? Oh, that's right: Comcast and a few others.
Who makes money off the phone network? Oh, that's right: Verizon and a few others.
Why am I being so pedantic? Because the lies are such that they can be seen through by a 5-year-old if you just have the will to open your eyes and stop jabbering about how any government involvement in the economy is socialist/communist and, ultimately, a Bad Thing(tm). The above examples are probably proof enough that an open system is better for capitalism in the end -- i.e., the overall size of the market, not just the vast fortunes a few greedy bastards in control of fundamental networks can hold the system ransom for.
Didn't taxpayers pay to lay some of these networks to begin with, anyway?
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
Your cat is a fuckin' pussy
tell 'em that they have to bid for a contract administering it.
They you'll see all these bills go away.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Current initiatives for municipal broadband have a lot in common with previous attempts to set up municipal cable systems, not the least of which is that the same companies (Cox, Viacom, Adelphia, etc.) are involved.
A ID=/20050214/NEWS/502140334/1003/NEWS02) for permission to set up its own cable television service. The difference between this and the broadband proposals is that Adelphia is claiming that establishing a municipal cable network would be "overbuild," while with the broadband they're claiming that allowing a municipality to set up a broadband network would then prevent commercial companies from entering the market.
Municipal cable TV proposals aren't completely dead, they've just gone out of style. However, The city of Burlington, Vermont, is petitioning the state public service board (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
What do they want? If it's open markets, they should be willing to compete with municipal projects on a level playing field (i.e. one where the city can't subsidise their system through tax revenues).
If they champion "first-to-post" efficiency, then whoever builds the network first should be able to reap the benefits. Given government's alleged inefficiencies, that may mean that even if a city builds a cable or wireless network, they'd eventually have to sell it to a commercial provider if it becomes a liability to the city.
All it will take is one state allowing this before it becomes a national issue with a fight in Congress. The big cable companies are fighting this state to state at the moment, but Vermont is a very independent-minded state. IF they let Burlington proceed it wouldn't be the first time they've told an industry co-op to buzz off and set a precedent for any city that wants to do something similar either with cable or IP. I expect Adelphia to pull out every weapon they can find to stop them, but I'm hoping, as with the sign restriction laws, land development rules, and the non-returnable bottle ban, that Vermont holds its ground and lets Burlington take Adelphia on head to head.
They may ultimately fail, but I'd rather see them go down in a fair fight than see the project get bound, gagged, and tossed in Lake Champlain before it can get to the arena.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
if the Red states think it's a good idea to lock themselves in prison and ban Miniciple broadband, then good. In fact, lets take it one step further. If they don't want their freedom to choose, then at the next election, let's not count their votes. How's the for freedom of speech and choice.
(/sarcasm) After all, they've done such a good job at maintaining necessary investments in our electrical grid. (/end sarcasm).
There are two options today for achieving community-wide wireless coverage.
First, trust the for-profit companies to do their part. (That they will do in some places.)
Second, ANY educational, religious, or other non-profit organization can found a membership-based organization consisting of voluntary members whose dues cover bother their use and services to those who can't afford the service. Such an organization could either build the towers or contract out to the for-profits.
AARP and AAA and Sierra Club are all examples of very different organizations whose services delivered far exceed their narrow original core mission.
While I am in favor of taxes for police, fire, public schools, defense, and social services, I'm not so sure about taxes for universal wireless coverage in a nation where 43 million people have no health care coverage.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
Municipal wireless is really just about a municipality subsidizing businesses. That's why they do it. Subsidizing businesses leads to more businesses moving in, which leads to more jobs, a better local economy, and re-election.
Why not offer a tax break then? Tax breaks have a long-term cost. You lose that revenue for as long as you're willing to offer the break. Wireless provides a "holy grail" in subsidizes though because the theory is that you spent a fixed amount, recoop that cost, and then the system pays for itself.
Money doesn't just appear out of thin air. Where do the subsidizes come from? Opportunity cost of the local broadband providers. You're asking one company to bear the brunt of breaks for other companies. It's just not inheritly fair.
There are two additional problems. 1) What happens when the municipality realizes they can generate revenue by increasing the cost of broadband? 2) Where does the money come from when the system needs to be completely revamped for the next break-through generation of technology?
I think what will happen is the programs will succeed in the short term, but begin to fail miserably five years from now.
Libertarians want no government intervention for nothing and as little as possible laws as possible.
At the same time they rely on the government to make laws, which prohibits the public to act in its best interest.
Maybe I'm unclear about the concept, but this sounds like a bunch of fucking hypocrites to me.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Currently in Tallahassee you can get free wireless internet both downtown and at the airport. It's called Canopy, and it basically requires you to access a website first and then it connects you. It's quite convienent in the airport while you're waiting for a plane, I haven't had a chance to use it much downtown yet.
Also, just for reference: Comcast highspeed internet without cable, $55/month. Gotta love monopolies fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their huge profits.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
I can imagine that in smaller communities and perhaps larger ones, that 'local decency groups' would force local elected officials to censor objectionable content. Since they would be you ISP it would be easy to administer community standards. I can imagine that political hacks in charge of the network creating 'routing problems' which block opposition candidates, or the local rumor mill. Heck the local police could check on your email, or see which sites you visit. While larger communities might have good separation, smaller ones might even have the police dispatcher as the overnight server support!
I think that these laws should be written to include 'fair access' in the same way that local telephone companies are starting to open their own access, sort of a carrot and stick approach.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Case in point: in our town, Walmart wanted to build on a green field site. By the time they got around to it zoning rules had changed, but guess what? Our small municipality could not afford the legal fees to take on Walmart. Big corporate crushing small government.
And this is the same thing again. The fact is, if small municipalities can afford to provide broadband at reasonable rates, the private suppliers should easily be able to match them. Because private enterprise is so much more efficient than public enterprise, isn't it?
Well, pardon me while I beg to differ. Why should private enterprise, with its private airplanes, hugely overpaid execs, vast corporate dick-swinging-contest headquarters, and layers of management, be so much more efficient than small community efforts where the management overhead is minimal and the project manager isn't spending most of his or her time trying to do down the internal competition for the coveted corner office job?
Private enterprise is very good at delivering capital goods cheaply, but actually not always terribly good at delivering services cheaply.
It is hard to understand on what basis private companies have the right to prevent citizens banding together to co-operate on projects, whether it be putting up a community hall or a local broadband service. Perhaps a constitutional lawyer could explain it, but an expert on the cash flow of lobby companies might do better.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
YAPF (Yet Another Pathetic Failure)
Individuals have all the same rights. But companies have more rights then individuals.
That's the so called democracy in the United States.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
-1 troll? Some people have no sense of humor. Lighten up!
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
Pretty soon we're going to be pledging allegiance to our profit margin and shareholder interest instead of the flag.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Its amazing how the USA's Facist unperpinnings show through the "smoke and mirrors" now and then. The BOYS have been working on this for years. At first they wanted to own the internet and when that failed - they then started to give the elected BOYS enough money and BJ's to stop others (meaning those dirty masses-us) from ensuring that the internet will always be a place for free expression of ideas. Yesterday the USA courts ruled that during elections candidates cannot attack corporations for pollution and other destructive behaviour!!
...the fact that they are charging for it, (even if making a profit), is irrelevant. The idea is that the government can unfairly compete with private interests; however this would also have the potential to ban, for example, free Wifi in libraries.
I didn't read the article, but I hope this doesn't hit Michigan. Here in Wyandotte, a 'burb of Detroit, we have our own power, water and cable TV systems. With the cable comes a competitive internet service, 3Mb/512Kb. The system is open to competition, so I could get Comcast cable internet, if I want, as I understand it. But I like getting my my utilities all on one bill. I just wish the state utilities commission had let them buy the local phone 30 years ago or so. Then I could have everything there.
What?
"I don't think the governmnet should be protecting people from other parts of government."
That, sir, was hilarious. I'll put you down as "not a fan of checks and balances" then, shall I?
The private sector takes care of everybody's needs just fine, thank you very much.
So where's his broadband then?
A community is simply a group of individuals. If those individuals decide to pool their money together for community wide broadband Internet access, how is that different from those individuals pooling their money together for schools, or parks, or utilities (franchise agreements)?
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
The information age is relying more and more on the internet for interconnectivity and we see broadband being meshed into more and more devices each year. I don't want local municipalities to try and compete with the big telcoms (they are already being paid off by them to retain their monopoly in my area). Why not offer wireless within the heart of the city as a public service? Heck I'd even pay $50/yr for it if the range was good enough. Wireless is the direction we're headed anyway so I really see this as inevitable.
I'm not going to use a wireless connection (wireless networking--yes) as my primary method of internet access but having bluetooth while I'm out and about in town (for my cell, pda, laptop or whatever) would be great. That is the direction they need to go in.
Atlanta: wastewater treatment system - even with all of the new development in the past 15 years, the wastewater system had gotten so bad that the EPA was fining them tens of thousands per day in some instances. And this is WATER folks.
DC: Drinking water systems contaminated with lead, that city officials knew about and didn't warn the public. This is W-A-T-E-R meant for consumption.
I used these examples because I am familiar with both of them (Worked on a CE study in Atlanta) and am involved with Waste MGMT in DC.
In reality Cable and Telephone companies have been in bed with the government for so long I expect they have many children running around, monstrous, flesh-eating children.
What is this really about? Increased centralization of government authority. In other words, this is the state government usurping the authority of city governments. As a libertarian, I see this as a bad thing. Unfortunately, many libertarians seem to be wandering in the wilderness lately, seeing themselves not as proponents of increased liberty, which necessitates weakened government, but rather as knee-jerk pro-business.
If you are a libertarian and you support this law, you should ask yourself, which is better for liberty a strong, centralized government that looks out for its cronies in business or a weak, decentralized government.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Oh yeah, I'd guess that about thirty seconds after that little city set up its own ISP Communists would take over our country! Maybe less. Just like in the great movie, "Red Dawn"! It's a good thing you warned me.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Okay.
As we all know, Privately owned things can always deliver better service.
As evidence, I offer the fact that the Privately owned Cincinnati Bengals ALWAYS defeat the Community owned Green Bay Packers.
That's all I can say. After watching my GF (Yes I have one) fight with the utility company here in Arkansas because after swapping the meter, her bill jumped $300 one month and being told by the head supervisor "he ain't gonna adjust the bill" even after they dropped the ball for more than 6 months. After going to the Attorney general she was told he has no say so over utilities company what so ever. Her last bet is the mayors office which is still to be determined. Point is there is no body to regulate these guy's and utility companies generally don't have even anywhere close to remotely a good customer service reputation.
but then they couldn't fund it using tax-payer dollars. That is half of the appeal of municipal internet access - it is "cheap" or "free" because it is being subsidized by people who don't use it (those without computers), or who use it and are paying a disproportionate amount of the costs (the wealthy). The local telcos and cable companies are definately not providing the best bang-per-buck possible, mostly because there is not enough competition. But a small coop has it's own inefficiencies, and I would not expect them to be able to do much better than the existing broadband services on price - without sweetheart price-setting legislation forcing the hardline owners to offer their lines to the coop at whatever the politicians think is a "fair" price.
That said, even though I would not support government broadband in my community, I do not like these laws. I am a pragmatic liberterian but I also believe in democracy formost. If these comunities want thier towns to provide broadband, that is their decision to make. The federal government has no place telling the states what services they can and can't offer, and the states have no place telling the counties/towns what services they can and can't offer. Besides, the fact that there is such demand from the comunity for these services shows that the existing monopolies are not serving the people well, and creating legisation to enshrine them further is not the answer.
NH is listed as a state with repressive laws to prevent municipal WiFi, but that's not really the case. The bill that was passed was actually written to ENCOURAGE such things. http://www.manchesterwireless.org/ is one example of a Citywide Muni net in the state that's famous for its slogan as well as its (in)famous pledge of No Taxes!
Other commnunities should be able to provide free access like this, but if you let the Comcasts and Verizons have their way, they will destroy this kind of thing before it gets off the ground.
Now, cable modems and DSL have a lot going for them, and their associated access speed and throughput are useful. But allowing ANYBODY with an old laptop and a wireless card to at least get on the network is very helpful.
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
RTFA. This little tidbit was at the bottom of the "New Hampshire" page from freepress.net:
(Note: HB 653 was reportedly introduced to encourage, rather than discourage, public entry, and it has many positive features. Furthermore, there may be ways to read or clarify some of its provisions that could be interpreted as potentially restrictive.)
I wonder how many other states' bills include favorable provisions.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
p.s. I am really annoyed by Wuropean attitudes. I can give you an example. There is an Italian guy I know that is happy to knock anything American on the grounds that it's well. American - from the US - the country of guns and cowboys. Yet he works for anAmerican company and has done for many years. He really is a infuriating. I also know many other people like this. They are just the most ignorant people. Sometimes I wish Michael Moore never wrote so many books or created so many documentaries. (Ignorant) people then make the tragic mistake of assuming that things would be better under Kerry or Gore for exmaple. Both of those muppetsw are also corrupt. Most people in Europe are happy to tell Americans who to vote for even though they never even heard of Ralph Nader for example. They have no idea how it really is. I'm tired of hiding behind my satiracal comments all the time...but actually that's what I'm goona continue to do..
Come to Yurp, my Yankee friends, land with valleys of golden flowers and blue lakes, and great pron!!
Fuck Yurp
...the US government. Try looking up "arpanet".
And that's been an absolute disaster-- they didn't anticipate all the spam in my email.
Iraq had the Internet too, before the capitalist invasion.
BT have been forced to open the ADSL network, so I'm about to switch to freedom2surf because BT have been disconnecting me constantly lately.
This pending bill places some crippling roadblocks in the way of municipal broadband for Oregon. It would require municipalities to have a majority vote in a referendum before providing any such service and would subject the proposed municipal communications providers to open records and open meetings requirements that do not apply to private-sector providers.
Requirements like those are just the Oregon way. I've lived in many places, and Oregon by far has the most politically active citizenry. While on the surface such requirements may seem appealing in order to protect Oregonians, they might just be the sugar coating a poison pill for municipal wifi.
The bill also calls for a cost-benefit analysis to be done at the end of three years. Three years is a very short time to see a return on investment. And the process detailed by HB 2445 would need to be repeated for each municipality as the network expands. This sounds like a long and tedious process. By the time anything can be done, the technology to disseminate network connectivity will have changed multiple times.
Mike.
http://injoke.org
http//injoke.org -- Culling The Interesting
"How can you sit back and trust your local or state government to deliver this service?"
Whether I do or don't is immaterial.
The real question is:
As a resident, as a citizen, isn't it my right to empower my local government to deliver WiFi/Broadband if I desires?
Perhaps I think my local government does do a good job delivering services.
To me, the argument about essential versus non-essential services is interesting, but not at all relevant to the discussion here.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
So you guys want internet from the folks who brought you the shining example of efficiency that is the DMV? That is friggin idiotic.
At least if a corporation does a bad job it's competetors go out of business. If a government does a bad job it outlaws the competitors.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
What turned the Great Depression into a great instead of a normal recession (then called depression) was the federal government. The Federal Reserve contracted the amount of money in the economy when they should have been putting more money into the economy. A major bank wasn't backed up by other bankers b/c it was mainly Jewish and they were anti-semites, and that had a major negative impact as well.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Corporate/For profit WiFi will depend on specific power requirements, specific licenses for antenna placement and other restrictions (which may be well overcome by illegal means, but that is not the point). I clearly see the beauty of WiFi public networks (and have even considered participating in our local "free" underground network) but we should ask for a legal framework for public WiFi instead of no law at all.
P.
On one hand I love the idea of getting "free wireless" as it's relatively simple and inexpensive to impliment and maintain. It does, however, employ a few more people which is good for the community as well. It also provides a lot of community "feel good" so any politician who makes it happen will have votes for next term because of it.
But given that it's a government-operated thing, there might be privacy concerns to think about. It would be all too tempting to do your online banking and such from these access points but more than that, what about any hidden issues like if they set up an online EULA that allows for search and seizure of your equipment without a warrant or something like that... a kind of scenario that my paranoid mind can easily imagine given previous stories of various police departments sending out fake "Prize Winning" notices only to find that once inside the location the "winners" are arrested for having old warrants. (Funny, clever... always makes me smile to read about that.) But what if some jack-ass pop-up ad takes a user to some porn site (I know, a VERY unlikely scenario) that is flagged somewhere in the municipal servers and they dispatch the cops to seize the user and his computer.
Well anyway... I don't see any problem with municipalities putting out wireless... I know business will always have problems with it and frankly, I don't care. Business, some time ago, used to care about the value of "good will" where they were give to the community in various ways. I haven't seen that in years and frankly, I don't have any good will for big business any longer as a result. So "screw you" big business!! What have you done for me lately?
Thoreau, where are you now? We need you to show Americans how a good man can stand up for justice and refuse to allow himself to be dominated by a government that prefers to give the public empty rhetoric rather than the freedoms to be good people and decent neighbors.
There is more at stake here than having to pay higher prices for broadband. What we have here is the government moving in to protect private interests who want to CONTROL the Internet; to inhibit free speech and deny users access to the single greatest resource we possess for enabling and maintaining a true global democracy. Do you really want AOL/Time Warner and Verizon dictating the terms we can access the Internet? Of course our well-bribed officials are siding with the multinationals; they know which side their bread is buttered on. It's time to show them what happens in America when the public gets fed up with corruption and a so-called elective system of government that offers taxation without representation.
I'd like to see them start arresting communities in masse and try to justify that to their electorate. Good luck! If people would just stand up for their rights, we wouldn't have to worry about crap like this.
Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers DIED for our freedom. Are we willing to go to jail for it?
Someone is actually relying on the Tallahassee Democrat for news reporting? That's below even /.'s standards. It's truly a crappy newspaper.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What I don't really get is how is a community run cable or ISP any damn different than that same community group purchasing electric or gas or a city run trash service?
The connection and the IP still has to come from somewhere, and it's being purchased from someone.
If the city can get my electric and gas cheaper that kicks ass. Why shouldn't I be able to get my internet access and cable cheaper too by cutting out the greedy middle man and ditching stuipd stuff like 'Transition Charges'?
Kerry is more boring than corrupt, I'd say. He's gotten behind a lot of good legislation and has fought the good fight, he's just not very inspiring.
I wish Edwards - or Dean - and McCain had made it through the primaries. THAT would have been the kind of tough choice I wanted to make - which one was better, as opposed to which one was not more worser. Er. Right.
+++ATH0
It used to be that the word 'government' would have people reaching for their flame-retardent suits (and their shotguns), but the vast majority of people now seem to think that maybe, just maybe, markets and businesses aren't the best way to provide all services.
Maybe people have been paying attention for the last few years after all!
My Journal
I posit that current anti-americanism is not a "hate America" or "hate Americans" posture, but "hate the imperialist behaviour of the current American government" in the name of the American people. I think Blair is being a dickhead too, but I don't translate that into a blanket anti-British feeling.
If you consult Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's omnibus reference, Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations, you would consider other ways of phrasing that, such as "more states that wioll haven passed bills." Hope this helps.
[
If the cable/DSL duopoly isn't interested in serving an area, why should they get to whine when the local government steps in to fill the need? The demand is clearly present, or the city fathers wouldn't bother either.
Then add the provisions that apparently hinder public websites for city/county/state government, and you REALLY have to start wondering.
So does this mean hotel lobbies and starbucks and bookstores in the US have to start charging for their internet access?
Is it possible that avoiding municipal wireless access will eventually lead to a freer society? If broadband access remains expensive, perhaps this will drive mesh networks later on and a drive for free digitally-used spectrum. In that case, there's no ISP that they can track down in order to subpoena your address when you share information. Will keeping things locked down eventually stimulate grassroots networking?
1) Cable companies make money 2) You don't like taxes 3) Let the government COMPETE (there's your free market) 4) If the local gov does a better job, your cable rates go down (that saves you money) 5) Your taxes also go down because the gov is making money on cable and don't need the tax revenues (or your taxes stay the same but your school board can afford to fund PE classes, or something) 6) This is all good
Vote Quimby!
"Also, just for reference: Comcast highspeed internet without cable, $55/month. Gotta love monopolies fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their huge profits."
It's $62/mo out here in CA if you're not a Comcast cable subscriber. Hrm, why the price difference I wonder.. maybe it's that they can squeeze more out of customers in higher per-capita income areas? Bastards!
Got a citation for that?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I live in Alaska and Hawai'i, you insensitive clod!
Your brain is not a computer.
People have posted on the Community/Government distinction, but that is only part of it.
These local governments can form a committee to develop community wireless. Yes, they can't use any government money.
But they can probably get a low-cost, long term government loan, which they can repay from their revenues.
They can probably get other sorts of incentives, too: Right of way permissions, easy permitting, tax incentives.
In fact, although I do not agree with the intent of the law, it could force the generation of true community network, which would really be wonderful.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Los Angeles and San Francisco have municipal electricity. Having lived for years under the monopoly of corporate PG&E, it was a big relief to have a muni system instead. I found them more fair, cheaper, more reasonable. "We the people" man. I'm all for it, and a pox on all those trying to stifle community in the name of corporate profit.
San Francisco Photographers
You do realize that the government doesn't have their own money right? Ultimately, in the end, we are going to have to pay whatever it costs to provide the service in taxes. So if it costs X to provide the service and they charge Y to users, the other X - Y is just going to be made up in taxes. So people who don't even know what WiFi is will be subsidizing our browsing (not to say we don't subsidize things all the time that we don't use). The real question is can the government really provide this service cheaper than private business and how do we determine exactly how much the goverment is spending to provide the service. That is the problem with private businesses trying to compete against the goverment.
Our community ISP (win.org) decided to do broadband by satellite despite a group of us telling them they were out of their minds. The project never paid for itself. Win.org is a non-profit but technically not run by the city but they do get donations from the fire district and what not so it is funded by tax money.
So my tax dollars are indirectly wasted on this sort of useless crap.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
The local governments are wanting to provide Wi-Fi because the telecom monopolies are sitting on their asses and not providing it because of various reasons.
The second issue is in the areas where the telecom monopolies are providing it, they are the only choice and are charging too much. If the government wants to get involved, contract out the data infrastructure. Don't leave it in the hands of a Verizon to control everything.
Which scenario is better?
Scenario A: Verizon runs fiber to my house. Verizon is my only choice of ISP. If I want another ISP, they have to run a separate fiber line to my house. Nuts!
Scenario B: Gov't awards job to contractor to run fiber to my house. I can choose from multiple ISP's for my service over this fiber.
I don't get the dreamy types who view the government as some huge outside force that is imposed on them.
We are the government. We hold the power (responsibility?) to change things. If the government was considering building a municipal network in your area, as a technologically adept citizen, what would stop you from getting ahold of the people responsible, and having a sit-down talk with them about the proper way to do it? What would stop you from volunteering to administer or advise this project? What's stopping YOU from being the contractor that runs it?
Instead all I can see in this post is three paragraphs of complaints modded insightful, with not one solution proposed. That makes the parent only half a post.
Everything breaks down when everyone expects everyone else to deal with problems. So, now that the paranoid flag-waving is out of the way, I look forward to reading the solutions you propose to the problems you outlined above.
Or maybe someone else will do it for you.
As everyone knows, broadband actually means several analog signals multiplexed together (frequency division). So run fiber instead that will use a digital (time division) signal. There's your loophole.
I knew that as soon as morons started equating broadband with "fast internet access" that we would have a problem. The actual meaning of Broadband does not garauntee any type of speed. Everyone keeps saying that they want broadband. I don't. I want baseband. I want fiber to my house.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Feeding the troll... but...
What is wrong with a little socialism? It seems that most sane governments have been able to handle a little bit of socialization with no ill effects (Canada), and have come out on top of the US as for standard of living.
But then again the ghost of McCarthy would roll over in his red white and blue grave.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Wow, If you moderators think that was flamebait, you should read the rest of the thread, or the article for that matter. It's amazing how people claiming to be "liberal" and "open minded" are often quite the opposite when it comes to opposing viewpoints.
You pretty much got it. And the US still has huge areas that are offered zero broadband, nor are they going to be offered broadband from the private concerns anytime soon. It seems it's OK to have government run and regulated roads, so that the stuff we get from the non broadband served areas can get into the cities, but the stuff from the cities out, run over much cheaper wires, seems to be "controversial" and "it wouldn't pay" and is "too expensive". We can have "broadband" government run water pipes into the cities, but not broadband data pipes out. Hmm, isn't that special. Perhaps the people not served with broadband in the rural areas should shut their water that they have been getting ripped off for for generations down to a trickle (analogous to dialup) going into the cities and see how everyone there liked that. And when they complained direct them to the data pipe monopolists for a solution. A pipe is a pipe, they both serve a purpose and having "enough" beyond a marginal intermittent trickle is sure a good thing. And privatise it and really make a huge profit on it, no local government involved. Oh, joe big city wants more water and have it cheap because it's useful? Well, no problem, build your own pipelines then, or pay the fee like it should be. Without tax money. Purchase each individual right of way from each rural land owner that the pipeline crosses. Let's do it with natural gas as well. See what it costs the end user in the cities for water and heating gas then. Oh, they like electricity? Swell, let them start their own coalmines inside the cities, and build their own genplants, all private run, but inside the cities only. Any coal from outside has to pay each individual landowner a fee for crossing his property on his stretch of private road, or his stretch of private train tracks. Let's let the rural folks who's lands the powerlines cost all individually negotiate the fee for allowing those electrons to slide on by on their property. Would make for some interesting cost increases then. The rural folks would have enough money to pay for their own fat data pipes then, but now? Nope, they get ripped off for critical products, forced by law to "share" what they own so that the huge dense population areas can have cheap and plentiful. Food? No problem, they got all them big buildings downtown, maybe Verizon and Bellsouth HQ rooftops can have gardens on them to supply their "profitable" broadband customers with food too.
The FCC "allows" 50,000 watt commercial stations, and industry cookie-cutter "content" monopolisation, yet joe schmoo little local guy out in the sticks can hardly get "permission" to run a 10 watt community station without the licensing fees costing more than the hardware, and don't even think about it being a commercial venture. Now they want to disallow any attempt at all to even have a chance at broadband when it has become obvious that the big guys just will *not* move it to places it's not at already? And the only bone they can throw is 802.11x with that pitiful range, and even that wouldn't be "allowed" for a community to run itself?
Nuts. Large corporate run government, gotta love it.
...on this thread, today, the Righwingers are getting their asses kicked! And as a former rightwinger (of the Libertarian and paleocon variety), I must say, it is a DAMN good feeling!
Is it time for a sea change? Are people's eyes finally being opened by the drip drip drip of baldfaced facts?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Laws prohibiting local governments from creating free wireless networks is not the same thing as porhibiting say a wireless cooperative. I must admit that I haven't read all of the proposed laws, but I dont think they can prevent individuals --- or groups of individuals --- from setting up wireless networks in the unregulated band. To me a wireless cooperative is ideal. This way the people using the service are the ones that pay for it.
-- john
Cities do not need more infrastructure to keep track of. Hell, most cities have a hard enough time keeping money flowing for water, sewer, roads, police, fire fighters, schools, etc...
Internet access is not a necessity. You have no guaranteed rights for cheap/free broadband acess. You pay what you can afford just like everyone else. What? You can only afford 56k access? Then that's what you get until you can afford $30-$40 a month for faster access.
Once the city gets involved it will be one big clusterfuck. How much money gets poured into this project? What about support? Will there be a help desk to call 24/7? (If it's government you can bet that support will only be available from 8am-5pm M-F execpt for all holidays) What about controlling virii and trouble makers on the government-controlled network? How do you keep trouble makers off of the network? What about content filters? Am I allowed to surf porn on a government controlled network?
Just let the private sector provide the non-essential services. Just look at the prices of dialup now. $10 a month for 56k access. Access is getting cheaper all of the time.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Natural monopolies eventually disappear. Nowadays there is obviously no natural monopoly on telephone service. Yet, curiously, the Baby Bells are still around and still trying to get VOIP to be regulated like they are. The old natural monopoly rules never really go away, they just get used as a club to crush competition. And this is as true for municipal agencies fighting for budgets as it is for corporations fighting for business.
There are only a few places where a natural monopoly for broadband even exists, and those rural areas are the only places that should even be thinking about this, though of course they aren't the only ones by a long shot. But everywhere this happens, the natural monopoly will eventually be gone. Sooner or later, you're left with a broadband company, inefficient due to lack of scale, with the customer service of the DMV. It can survive because it has subsidized its services with the money of taxpayers that don't use them and thereby strangled all private competition. And by conniving to use regulation to make its subsidy, and its jobs, permanent regardless of technological advancement.
Trust me. I've seen it with the local city-run power monopoly. Prices are remarkably low - and the property taxes that really pay for the power are remarkably high.
Sounds ideal to me. I wonder why the people of Eastern Europe didn't think so?
the way the law works. Learn something about intention and public referendum. The "Gubbmint" ALWAYS claims that it's actions are community actions. See Bush's "Public Mandate" for an example. Communities doing this ALSO threaten by greedhead monopolists. Don't for one minute think they will leave you alone. Anyone connected for free is money out of their pockets.
FREEDOM Is On The March!
(note to the sarcasm-impaired: get a clue).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You can't fight city hall...
Cable Company: You can't build a municipal broadband network - it's against state law.
City Hall: Hmm..., you're right. We can't legally build a municipal broadband network. But we can most certainly legally tax it and regulate it. So what will it be? Are you going to offer cheap broadband or will we start writing tax laws?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Florida passes a bill preventing local councils/government from emptying residents' trash cans. This is to encourage growth in companies providing waste services. It is expected that residents will save $100/year in local taxes and only have to pay $250/year to a waste collection corporation but residents are not expected to complain since the bill mandates that the new trash collection vans are brightly painted, spray sweet smelling rose water and play a merry tune.
Would that be the freedom to photograph bridges and subways without being harassed by police, or the freedom to enter the country without fingerprinting? Perhaps you meant the freedom to grow and ingest psychoactive plants? Lest I forget, the freedom that comes with puritanical views on sex?
Oh. You meant the freedom to make lots of money without having to pay onerous taxes. How....visionary.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
It's not "Free Pass", it's Free Press. It's not surprising you got it wrong, most people have no idea of the concept.
...having been inside a government funded agency that was competing with the private sector, is that the government has a right to build it's own internal infrastructure. WI-FI hubs are just an offshoot of this infrastructure.
Now we didn't sell to the private sector, as we were a cost reduction effort for government and nonprofit affiliates. Actually hooking up a WI-FI and letting joe citizen hop on is pushing it, I'll agree.
However, if we hadn't done this, the companies would have continued to treat the state as a cash cow, milking more of your tax dollars out of the system than what we were running cost. It was a good idea, and good for the taxpayer, in concept. It also provided a low bar over which the private sector had to rise in order to compete for the nonprofit sector, and given the lethargy and incompetance I saw demonstrated by the private sector providers, I'm glad we did.
But it did need some oversight. Despite my unit's success in reducing costs, the organization as a whole was rife with gratuitous spending by idiots in high positions with little or no real accountability. The truth, though, is those same idiots permeate the corporate world as well. And, no, competition doesn't drive them out. There are enough of them within each and every private sector competitor to stifle growth. It's an endemic problem not isolated to government agencies.
Someone had to do it.
Quite the opposite for corporations, where offices, mechanical plant, carrier lines, and customers are a source of tax revenue.
In today's world of out-of-state sales, the states have a vested interest in limiting municipal broadband - it keeps the tax revenue flowing in the coffers.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
As usual that segment of the population for whom the cost of internet access is prohibitory remains unrepresented and undiscussed on Slashdot.
There exists in the United States a major digital divide (and let's not even get started on the international situation). Seems to me that one of the reasons among many for this is the cost of internet connectivity vis-a-vis income levels. The people who make the least money (and often the struggling school districts their tax dollars support) cannot afford what all of us technocrat/intelligentsia types take for granted - a good consistent internet connection.
This in turn only exacerbates a growing polarization of wealth in this country. Children of the less educated (and hence of generally lower income class) are less likely to be exposed to computers early in the home or school, and are less likely to excel in many of the increasingly technical jobs available. And so they make less money and so on and so on...
It also seems to me that you could alleviate this problem by allowing municipalities to get into the ISP biz - just as they have with electricity, water and the like - to offer a low cost alternative. Indeed, the quality may be lower, the beauracracy slogging and the elite class may not want to use it, but this is often the case with municipal utilities. Walk by any yoga studio in SF and you will find that most of the folks eschew the tap water in favor of some Euro-themed overpriced bottled water. Yes, water is different in that no clean municipal water supply results in a tremendous public health problem, but I would argue that allowing the class division to continually widen will result in all sorts of civic problems - from health threats, soaring welfare costs, and, eventually, violent uprising.
A municipal ISP could level the playing field by bringing acess to those who might not otherwise afford it, as well as reducing costs to schools, government programs, and other affiliated public service organizations. So isn't this bill just about corporate interests protecting their profits and in the process driving a wedge between the rich/educated and the poor/uneducated?
You have 3 or 4 sets of DSL and cable wires running into your house? That sounds great. There are parts of New York City that totally lack DSL and cable. In 2005. I wonder why, after so many years? Surely the free market would not let such a need go unfilled!
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The article implies that it's preventing community groups as well, but it appears not. See this post on the subject from Alameda Wireless
I don't think the majority of people on here knows what it's like to grow up dirt poor. Both of my parents and my wife's parents grew up poor (by their time's standards, not today's standards for poor which is actually not that bad).
You don't need cable TV, satellite TV, cell phones, internet access, more than one car, and all of that crap. You don't have a right to own any of that crap. Don't you get it? THEY'RE NOT NECESSATIES!!! Our sense of reality has become so warped that we don't even know the difference between "wants" and "needs".
Here is what is truly needed in this day and age:
-a roof over your head
-water, food, gas, electricity
-basic appliances (stove, oven, refrigerator, maybe a microwave/washer/dyer - maybe)
-one car
-maybe local telephone service.
-TV/radio with an antenna
Here's what I consider "icing on the cake" or "wants":
-cable/satellite TV
-cell phones
-computer/internet access
-PS2/Xbox & other toys
-more than one car
I could go on and on...
If we don't need it then the government shouldn't be providing it. It would be a huge waste of tax payers money to build a city wifi network.
Just think for a moment about all of the stuff you pay for now that's not a "need". Now add up all of the money you would save every month/year. That's a lot of money in the bank, isn't it? Now do you understand why some of the jobs are being outsourced? We think we need to be payed more so we can afford all of our "wants". We're becoming too damn expensive to support ourselves and the jobs are going overseas to people who actually use the money for "needs".
Just think about that.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Besides the fact that eventually these "free" or "cheap" government broadband services will be subsidized if not completely paid for by our taxes, which means you will pay for it and end up paying a lot more then you normally would, the thought of the government running an information network is too scary to think of. Imagine the rules and regulations they would start to add on to their service(they are doing this already). Everything you type one day would have to be recorded, you would need to get permission to d/l something, the sytem would NEVER get upgraded, ect. Not to mention the laws they would pass to keep the govn't system up and running while making it extremly hard for companies to compete. Any government, whether large or small, is worse then any corporation no matter how big. Just think of this, any government can FORCE you to do or not do something, no corporation can do that. You have to buy a company's products or services, your forced to pay for government. And to this day, I still have not benefitted off of anything from the government and I doubt anyone else has off my taxes.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
The private sector has had decades to set up something but they've failed to even take notice.
Uh, most people hadn't even heard of the internet 10 years ago, and certainly not broadband. I agree with your point, but be careful how you support it.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
It's not that I particularly want my city council setting up municipal wi-fi, it's that
I don't want the telecom industry or their state-lawmaker-puppets prohibiting my city council from doing so.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Okay, so the community I live in can't provide free wireless (a la 802.11g?). Private enterprises (such as the coffee shop I frequent, local hotels, etc.) will still provide hotspots. Wardriving is too much fun anyhow to let the community take that away. Keep the internet for the geeks who know how to get onto it -- let the rest languish in the legal quagmire of Big Corporate Legal Wrangling.
There is a rule in most debate arenas: The first person that stoops to a Nazi reference automatically loses the debate.
It is just not necessary, and serves only to inflame an already over-exposed wound.
(stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am in the process of building a WiFi community network based on 802.11g nodes. I simply do not care about any state laws in this regard. Any bills outlawing community networks could only pass if the democratic process was being cirumvented and I would not respect them. I am running an open wireless repeater bridge as long as I want to and I helping my neighbors setting up nodes as well. WiFi community networks are a great step towards a free and decentralized internet.
And when your stuck with some crappy 802.11 system, and no one wants to install 802.16 in your area because they can't compete for free, you'll know what I mean. 802.16 will alow mulitple carriers to work in your area. Let the free market work.
You are clueless. If a govt takes over a service, they eliminate competition. When your tax dollar is subsidizing or paying for something, and the govt. passes laws to prevent competition in this service, there is no incentive and often no ability for the private sectore to compete.
We should not leave it up to the cities to build community networks. Everyone can put a wireless bridge on his roof and become part in the new movement of wireless community networks. With the right hardware and routing implementating the internet will become decentralized and commercial internet "backbones" will become obsolete very soon. The internet will become completely distributed and partial outages would not affect it that much. Perhaps the magical word "security" and the promise of free internet will help accelerate this development.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The story indicates that these states have banned 'communities' from establishing wifi networks. The truth is that they prohibit local governments from getting into the ISP business. Communities are still free to set up WiFi.
People shouldn't equate their societies with their governments, because it really doesn't speak well of their societies.
Why don't you free people make a petition asking this kind of laws be banned by fed law or similar (IANAL). And put NAMES of politicians backing the current/upcoming state ones.
(petitiononline.com maybe?)
Actually, if you read my post, you'll see that I suggested an answer. Choose between 3 or 4 companies.
There are dozens of companies waiting to offer broadband or Wi-Fi. If they aren't willing to offer it in some areas, there might be a reason! The free market decides where and when. I don't want to depend on the government. The average voter gets their news from the main stream media. Do you trust the media? I'd much rather choose from a selection of different companies. And if it's not offered in my area, and I feel it's important, I'll move to where the services are offered. If people can't afford to move, I suggest to you that broadband/wi-fi isn't their only problem, and that the governement might do FAR better to solve some of those problems more than anything else. You can either give out welfare, or teach people a vocation. No one is happy sitting at home on welfare. It's never enough.
You did bring up a good point. If you look at the original parent.... way up there, they don't really suggest a solution either! My guess is they're complaining about big corporations more than anything else. Frankly, who likes government run institutions? If you have a choice, would you go to the government run grocery store? Or would you go to a privately owned grocery store? Do you want politicians telling you what you can eat? How about what price you can pay? How about letting the government drive private businesses out of business?
Let the government do what it was intended for. Saving the homeless. Feeding the poor. Education, protection. Offering luxuries like wi-fi and broadband? While people are dying? And private companies are waiting to offer service?
I know.. there are people in NY that don't have wi-fi/broadband. Too bad. Move to where it's offered? It's a solution, and it's not spending tax money on luxuries.
Politicians have picked Wi-Fi/Broadband because it's trendy. It's popular. They want to leave their legacy. Frankly, too many politicians leave too many expensive white elephants after they're gone. Tell the politicians to solve the problems that remain unsolved. Literacy. Homelessness. Starvation.
-- No sig for you!
The companies are doing what they're supposed to do. Namely, try to increase share-holder value. If I were a shareholder (I'm not), I'd want them to lobby for this too.
But the politicians are another matter entirely. They're supposed to look out for the well-being of their constituents -- not just a short list of "constituents" who just happen to be big businesses.
Occasionally, helping a business is in the interest of the larger population if it creates jobs and improves the economy without being unfair to everyone else. But in this case, I have a very hard time trying to see how granting localized monopolies to big business is in the public interest. If they think they can compete with the rates, they should try. If they don't think they can compete, they should be free to stay out of town. The notion that if you want to use the Internet then these businesses are somehow just entitled to your dollars is arrogant.
I still don't understand why people don't get angry enough to start recall campaigns.
If only lawn-care companies had more money, they could buy a few politicians to ban private individuals from mowing their own grass and force them to hire a lawn-care company.
I'm in Illinois, on the danger list. Here's what I wrote to my State Senator. Feel free to use any part of this text if you wish.
Dear Senator Raoul:
I am writing to request that you take action on the amendment concerning municipal provision of communications services to Senate Bill 499. It is very important that this amendment be prevented from becoming law. The offensive text of the amendment reads as follows:
This amendment represents a spectacular example of public corruption, in which the public interest is sacrificed to curry favor with large telecommunications companies. These companies are determined to stamp out municipal provision of broadband services so as to preserve the near-monopolies they so notoriously abuse, and apparently are prepared to lavishly endow with campaign contributions any legislators who are willing to assist them.Note that this draconian legislative proposal would prevent municipalities from constructing their own broadband networks even in poor and rural areas that are under-served by the telecom industry, and that might obtain substantial economic benefits by investing in their own network infrastructure.
Note also that since there are currently several other states that have passed, or are in the process of passing similar legislation at the behest of the telecom industry, a competitive advantage will likely flow from those states to states that do not hog-tie their own citizens to prevent them from building their own high-tech infrastructure at the expense of their own tax dollars.
This piece of legislation is a scandal and an outrage. It is as if a waste management company had bribed legislators to forbid municipalities from building their own sewers or operating their own garbage trucks. I intend to track this issue very closely indeed, as it is a very high priority for me. I am certain that there are many other technology-savvy voters in this district who feel the same way.
Best Regards etc.
GNU Info is documentation optimized for machine readability
I'm not sure how governments messing around in the marketplace constitutes "freedom". Here in the Land of the Free, we place limits on the powers that can be assumed by our federal/state/local governments.
You should understand the freedom is not simply the protection of property. Most Europeans understand freedom to mean something closer to Jean Jacques Rousseau's definition. In short, you are not free unless you obey the general will, since natural liberty implies slavery due to inequality in the 'state of nature'. If Rousseau is correct, then in theory we should remove all limits of governmental power, so long as government expresses the general will, since this increases freedom.
However, the corporation sued the goverment for 40 years of lost profits.
There was also a law passed that would give ownership for rain water, so the people couldn't even collect their own water without permission from the company. All your water are belong to us!
More Info
Ideally the city government would provide the (fiber, lets hope) infrastructure with various ISP's competing for customers. No one in the city government has to be tech savvy enough to actively manage the network content. It's not doing away with the "free market" or a retrograde back into Keynesian cathedralism, but a refinement of the free market model. Allowing the telcos to have a monopoly hasn't worked, so we are altering the model. With government provided infrastructure citizens can choose any ISP they darn well want. That theoretically will open up the competition that is crucial to the free market model which hasn't materialized under the current system.
The adult may ask for the filter to be removed, and the library doesn't have to filter, but the library MAY choose to keep the filter in place. Afterall, why should may tax dollars pay for your internet porn habit. Freedom of speech doesn't imply that I also have to subsidize it.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
If the city government ran the ISP/network. Would that give the police department free access to the logs on all users? After all, the police dept is part of the city government. They wouldn't need a court order or anything to track you since it's their network.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I'm not going to disagree with your first example, because frankly, I think it's at least close to the truth. See my earlier posts about how US healthcare is NOT freemarket. Your Social Security vs. Private Pensions argument isn't comparing apples to apples however. Social security operates nothing like a pension plan. If it were a pension plan, it would have to carry diverse assets in reserve in proportion to the present value of estimated future benefits. Basically, everyone running it would be in jail if it were a private pension. It's cheep to run because it doesn't have assets to manage, it's nothing more than a transfer payment from one generation to the next. Medicare and Medicaid (which are VERY different programs with very different structures I might add) would have a massive increase in overhead if they suddenly covered everyone because they base their pricing off of what the private insurers pay. They also define their administive costs different than we define overhead for insurance companies (which isn't really insurance, if you go to that post I was talking about to start with). So again, apples to oranges comparison.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
not "Free Pass."
Seriously... This sounds exactly like what china
is trying to enforce right now.
I can just see the rogue wi-fi networks being set up
to bring in bandwidth from canada...
wtf am I posting on slashdot for? How stupid... *sigh*
Why don't these communities buy the WiFi hardware and have 'volunteer' citizens (and private businesses) with broadband in their homes (and shops) install it and make it available to the public? Obviously there are some more details to work out, but if a community wants free wireless service and the law won't let the govt. run it, what's to stop the community from doing it themselves? Makes sense to me and gives a big middle finger to big business.
Usual disclaimers when I talk about law: Yes, I'm a lawyer. No, this post is not intended to give legal advice. Reading this does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and me. Thanks for listening.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Could someone explain to me (I simply don't get it)., what is the interest of the state or federal government to stop community-run cable or broadband access?
That's how liberals twist things. They claim people who make more money have an obligation to give that money to people who make less. Liberals claim to stand for freedom, but in this respect their policies are very opressive.
The US govt usually only gets involved in infrastructure projects that aren't practival for free market. These involve things like roads, pipe, power lines, etc. that aren't practical to let just anyone build so they either do it themselves or choose a company and regulate them.
Now broadband wireless is not one of these markets. Using WiMax, a large number of companies can compete much like they do now for cell phone service. Local govts. are already wasting their money on shrt sighted WiFi based projects. They clearly don't know what they're doing. Once the govt. system is in place, you'll be stuck with it since it's tough to compete with a free system, even if your solution is much better
Vote for Pedro
I wonder if the langauge of these bills would prohibit non profit organizations from forming community networks. If not then it could be possible to form non profits for the sole purpose of providing broadband. Start suggesting this at your local community meetings!
The simple solution is to lobby city governments to ban any cable companies involved in this anti-competitive crap from being the local cable provider. Then the lawsuits start. The telcos will need another solution. Possibly telephone cords and necks should be involved.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
In the US, we believe the free market is about freedom. Having the majority of people vote to take your money and spend it on things for themselves is not freedom. If 55% of the population said you are a slave because of the color of your skin, is that a free society. It meets your criteria, i.e. govt did what the electorate wanted.
Aside from a brief period of enlightenment, Europe has gone stright from feudalism to socialism, substituting one form of tyranny for another.
Vote for Pedro
Broadband wireless is not a monopoly. With WiMax, a number of competitors can exist in 1 market, like with cell phone services. Having the govt step in is a bad idea because the private sector cannot compete against taxpayer subsidized monopolies. The govt should stay out of broadband wireless.
Vote for Pedro
The providers supporting this bill will soon be providing WiMax access which blows away any cobled together hack of a WiFi network. If your community goes ahead anyway and puts in a crappy WiFi network, don't complain when the providers decide not to put WiMax in your area because of the cheap crappy WiFi you have there.
Vote for Pedro
one of the biggest subsidies that we are offering any US manufacturer right now is keeping the dollar weak when compared to the rest of the currencies in the world. This tends to help companies like Boeing, GE, etc. that sell very high priced goods.
You have no chance to survive! Make your time!
You're wearing them all.
telecoms should stop their pathetic whining when communities they had previously ignored as being unprofitable, create their own WiFi networks. There is nothing quite like the arrogance of monopolists.
-- Howto: Get +5 (1) Whine about M$ (2) Namedrop Gentoo (3) Casually Abuse Mods (4) Namedrop Early Computer Model
I am on a board made up of normal people for a City ISP in Sandy, OR. It costs the same as Verizon and was put in place to provide Internet where Verizon, Comcast, and Charter don't run.
I have seen their operations and use their service. There is no blocking of ports, no blocking of sites, no blocking of anything. My one problem with them is that you get a private IP address by default (got to love NAT), but they are adding static public IPs for people who really want or need them.
I am against this bill that will block future muni-ISPs. If Verizon and Comcast don't want to expand coverage to where I am, why shouldn't the city?
-SB
but none of the big corps provide city wide coverage at wifi speeds. They want to nickel and dime us to death and make many would be apps, products, employers stillborn for lack of ubiquitos bandwidth. What if a private group provided free bandwidth? Would they be able to block that?
We have entire cities, like Tacoma, which provide municipal Internet, so this can't be true.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sorry I'm a few days late. Everytime that you bring up Libertarians/Objectivists, I have noticed you seem confused. Their philosophy can be summed up as "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." If you had read any of Atlas Shrugged/Fountainhead (and I doubt you have) you would see that the corruption you speak of probably wouldn't exist. Of course, the books are quite idealistic and utopian, but that doesn't change the fact that you would still be wrong with you assumptions. In fact, the antagonists in her books are politicians and business owners that corrupt the free market she dreamed of, much like the issue you're ranting about now. That is, people misusing the law (or lack of it) for purely selfish bloodsucking reasons, i.e. asking another to "live" for your sake. You could open your mind, but I feel you're too sure of yourself to do that now, but check out this excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, as I think it may be an eye opener for you: http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm
...used to be a library...now it's just a mind-cemetary
I wasn't totally aware earlier, but you get it just fine. That's my problem with many of the Libertarian beliefs as well (it's simply too "rational" for raw, fuzzy, organic life). I applaud them for their idealism, but it doesn't take too long to find the cracks in the vase, so to speak, when inspecting their politics. As a philosophy, I can sympathize with Objectivism on some level, but as a political base I don't trust my fellow man enough to see it implemented :) Thanks for responding to my late post.
...used to be a library...now it's just a mind-cemetary
If you look at the articles you'd understand why I think that infant mortality and life expectancy are such poor measures. If you look at case outcomes for particular diseases, especially cancers, survival rates are much higher in the US. One of the articles addresses the problems specifically with ragards to using infant mortality as a measure of healthcare quality. Life expectancy also has similar problems, because it is determined by many things other than the quality of the medical care (such as genetics and lifestyles, etc.)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.