Slashdot Mirror
Free Wi-Fi Threatened?
jasonmicron writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting that if certain state officials have their way, cities in the state of Texas will no longer be able to offer free WiFi to their citizens. This could set a dangerous precedent if passed, as broadband providers could start lobbying officials in the other 49 states to ban free WiFi as well. According to the article, Pennsylvania has already fallen victim to such a law but it excluded Philedelphia due to the city's 'existing efforts.'"
... from my apartment balcony. About 1/3 of those are open (no WEP or WAP).
Tell me again why the government needs to be able to get into the free-WiFi business.
So that would be the other 48?
The way I see it is, this is protection from government controlled internet. Not only would I fear things like the Patriot Act finding its way on to the backbone of the internet, but state controlled free internet would kill any competition. (Why pay when its free?) Granted there's little competition now days, but Govt control would just make it worse. We need to look toward ways of promoting Wi-Fi/Internet competition in the private sector. As long as this doesn't preclude small communities from offering Wi-Fi, I have no problems...
Banning of free Wi-Fi? What kind of country do we live in that would BAN free stuff?
I think if this passes, the terrorists have really won.
"Several telecommunications companies, which provide both dial-up Internet access as well as faster broadband connections through cable and DSL lines, say they were not involved in writing the bill."
I think they're lying. Plain and simple.
"That's not to say they disagree with the wireless provision. SBC Communications, which has more DSL customers in the nation than any other provider, said cities should be allowed to offer wireless Internet access in public places, such as parks and libraries. But they should not directly compete with private enterprises by providing services to residents and businesses, said company spokesman Gene Acuña.
"If they do, then we would have some real concerns," he said."
Such as what? If the town/city screws it up then people can purchase their own service. It should be up to the taxpayers to decide if they want this or not. And if you're a tax payer who does not want your money wasted on this, then fight it in your city.
http://www.savemuniwireless.org/ has information on how to contact the Texas legislator and other information about this bill
So... can someone tell me how the government has a right to get their "stolen cookie" encrusted hands into this?
Sincerely,
Andrew Allen
Keep in mind, that unless the city employees who administer the network do so for free, Linksys, Cisco, or whoever provides the hardware does so for free, and the upstream provider doesn't charge for bandwidth, this isn't "free" Wi-Fi, but instead subsidized, socialized Wi-Fi.
According to http://www.wifimaps.com/, there is only one wireless network within half a mile of my house, despite the fact that hundreds of people live in that area.
Why should the vast majority of the population subsidize the small percentage of people who are interested in this stuff? It's not like Internet connectivity is *that* expensive.
Besides, do you really want to get your Internet connectivity from your local government?
I think we should be asking ourselves whether public wifi is a good idea, if competition is available (not always the case, but is true in big cities like Philadelphia). I mean, how reliable would such a service be? How fast? Secure? And the funding has to come from somewhere....
Rather than regulate to create new business opportunities this only seeks to limit opportunity and development.
That's exactly what private enterprise wants you to think -- that they can do it better and cheaper.
Of course, Comcast is doing a great job of delivering broadband Internet "better and cheaper" than the alternative means, aren't they? And isn't SBC doing such a great job being "better and cheaper" than alternatives, too?
Oh, what's that? They suck? They're a huge pain in the ass, they have local monopolies, and they fix prices at whatever level they wish? Naaaah, that couldn't possibly be the case...
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Nobody said it had to be neccesary - but tell me why it needs to be legislated that government should NOT offer free WI/FI.
Poor people benefit. Taxpayers pay. Selfish people get upset, but don't seem to care that half of their income taxes fund a ridiculous military that outspends every other nation on the planet by a wide margin.
Ahh, it feels good to be a liberal.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
"Technology for All provides free computers to high school students who take a computer course, but is looking for a sponsor to help provide $125 modems that plug into computers and capture the wireless signal."
I too am searching for a sponsor to give me $125 for $50 wireless network cards.
Free stuff, such as Open Source software, stifles commerce. It's Un-American.
Governments giving free stuff to people is doubley Un-American.
This has nothing to do with blue/red states! It just makes sense that municipalities can offer free wifi access - it's obvious there are many benefits downstream.
For a good taste of how simply ludicrous this whole banning of free access by local and state govt's via the neighborhood telcos, see Lessig's latest article in Wired.
Note how many of the first comments in this thread are all Anonymous Cowards and are all anti-municipal WIFI. The Telcos have millions to spend on PR to kill muni wifi. Looks like some of those millions is going to the Internet.
Muni WiFi ALL THE WAY!!
As soon as my metro area goes muni wifi, I am gonna cut off my DSL AND my landline. Buh-Bye Big Telco....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The government shouldn't be providing free internet access anyway. Why should local ISPs have to compete with the government? If they're going to make anything free, how about electricity?
TANSTAAFL
There is no such thing as "free" wireless.
Besides which, providing wireless access is not a legitimate function of government.
http://www.savemuniwireless.org/ has information on how to contact your Texas legislator and more information on HB 789
Sarge says we're war-driving today. Get some extra ammo and aluminum foil.
Myth: Private enterprise is always faster/better/cheaper than public enterprise.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
I'd hope that it still doesn't ban other non-profit groups from offering free WIFI. I live in a small town in West-Central Missouri, where free wifi has been available throughout the entire town for quite a while now. It's provided by a local nonprofit organization, although they do receive resources from the state's "MoreNET" program. It would be incredibly sad if they lost their state-funded T1 connection due to some stupid anticompetition law. The United States likes to claim that we're the "most free" country in the world. If so, then our legislators need to be on the side of the general public, not the corporations.
>>Several telecommunications companies, which provide both dial-up Internet access as well as faster broadband connections through cable and DSL lines, say they were not involved in writing the bill.
I have lived in Texas and let me tell you this, Special interests RULE the legislature in Texas. The Texas legislature is limited by its constitution to meet for only 140 days every TWO years. The legislators are overloaded with work they HAVE to do to keep the state running. Because of that they rely on special interests very heavily.
In addition to that, campaign finance laws in Texas are virtually non-existant. There are no limits on contributions by citizens. My former representative bought a Ford Explorer with the leftovers of his campaign war-chest and got away with it.
If I want to get a 20% better education (or 20% better Internet service), I have to pay 220% the cost of it.
Good question! On that note, why do we have well-maintained roads and highways, and streetlamps, and hospitals, and schools, and firemen and policemen? Why don't we just privatize EVERYTHING, dammit!!
Like they aren't going to use tax money for it?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Our taxes will pay for it instead of the users. Considering only people with enough money to buy a computer really benifet, it isn't fair to use everyones taxes.
Not to mention that a lot of WiFi's popularity has been helped by commercial hot spots. What incentive do companies have if they know the government will put them out of business?
Disclaimer: I own pre ipo stock at a major hot spot provider.
The PA law might be influenced a little bit by the "good-old-boys" network (doesn't happen in government, I know...). Governor Ed Rendell was once Philadelphia's mayor. From what I understand, Verizon played a significant role in writing the bill... (lobbying doesn't happen in government either, right?)
It's not. But if the residents of a city want to share the cost of wireless internet access, why should state legislatures and the telecom industry be allowed to stop them? But even if the law gets passed, there's nothing to stop people from creating non-profit organizations to do the same thing. It would just be a bit more work to get the required funding.
what benefits exist if the government provides wifi networks instead of corporations?
Probably lower costs for the consumers. But, that's only if it stays at the city level. My gut feeling is that doing something like that at the state or federal level would only waste lots of time and money.
who is going to pay for this?
The tax payers, obviously. Or, in the case of a non-profit organization, anyone who wants to help cover the costs. Keep in mind that if money was short, a non-profit org might have to limit access to contributors only, or cap bandwidth for non-contributors.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
I'm waiting for the tsunami of examples demonstrating that socialism can provide services and products more efficiently than capitalism and the market...
These same companies that are fighting against cities offering Wifi, are the same ones that wish to block VOIP and any other service that they wish to sell. In fact, I am guessing that soon, they will start to block downloaded music and video and will offer a music/video service of their own.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
if they can provide free wifi, the should just return the freaking money in the form of a tax rebate or banish welfare
If it's the latter, have the taxpayers forking over the dough had any opportunity to vote how they wanted their money used, vis-a-vis large metro-area technology installations?
That's the whole point of this. If this law is passed, people will NOT get to vote - it will be banned no matter what. Do you think it should be illegal for public libraries to provide public hotspots?
Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
The govt wants the revenues from licensing. Commercial organizations will gladly pay it, but not if there a million coffee shops giving it way. They're trying to regulate the free providers out of existence. It won't be that hard to do.
It seems that there are three obvious sides here-
1) WiFi/Net access is a luxury. It is not a basic utility and should not be considered one. The availability of massive quantities of information to the public might be in the general interest, but they can go to a library.
2) Net access is becoming a utility. It is as necessary to the everyday life of the average american as running water and electricity. Remember, we started out without them. At what point does Net Access work that way? We're not quite at that debate yet. We probably won't be there for a while, although maybe it'll be considered if and when somebody establishes a monopoly.
3) Incentive. Are communities providing free wifi to encourage businesses to move in/stay local? This seems the best reason to do it. Although it might be better addressed by providing a tax incentive to businesses to provide indoor coverage than by a government-controlled system that's going to be inefficiently managed. [As a side-note, are these systems going to remain as open as they are after the first few major hacks from such points? What about liability for the Wireless Access provider? Does he have any responsibility to be sure his hardware isn't being used for malicious purposes, or is it like a payphone in the back of your business?]
Mmmm... just a few uninformed thoughts.
You are using the Internet right now, right?
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
hypocrite! taxpayers don't get any say already except for their meaningless vote. so why bring out this BS response to this issue? Do you understand how cheap free wifi really is? Several groups offer it with no tax $$$ involved for whatever your weak argument is worth.
The real answer is that there are solid reasons that exist for municipal wifi. Say you have a city like Philadelphia blanketed with wifi, or wimax, or whatever they decide to use (wifi for now). Cops are always online, ambulances are able to be online while traveling, trucking and delivery are better able to work with real-time inventory.
Then there's the issue of the digital divide. Forget the individuals, let's talk about the communities that aren't cost-effective for the ISPs to run broadband into. If the government doesn't get involved, what are they going to do?
I live in Long Beach, CA. The downtown is covered with free wifi. It's great, but most certainly hurts the cable and telephone companies. Everyone I know who lives around there picks up the wireless from downtown at home. Don't think that these anti-municipal wifi bills weren't preceded by heavy lobbying from Verizon (in Texas) and the cable companies.
On that note, why do we have well-maintained roads and highways, and streetlamps, and hospitals, and schools, and firemen and policemen?
Toll roads are generally better-maintained than government-run roads, many hospitals--generally the best ones--are privately-run, for-profit entities, private schools are generally considered far superior to government-run schools, and many fire departments are privately-run concerns contracted by certain communities. Some great innovations in firefighting and security have been developed by private enterprise, while socialized services end up plodding along with outdated technology and practices.
Why don't we just privatize EVERYTHING, dammit!!
Why not? I haven't seen a good reason yet for government to provide any services beyond resolving property disputes.
The Internet is a teroist tool, and should be banned right away!
If at all the government provides free internet, would we be able to access porn?. Now seriosuly, the government is trying to mandate what we watch, even when buying the service. So if the government is providing service would there be any regulations? and i havent RTFA.
You are using the Internet right now, right?
Yes, thanks to the wide availability of network access made possible by private enterprise around the world. Before 1995, the Internet was a limited government-run operation. It didn't realize its full potential until private enterprise took over and built new uses while fulfilling existing market demands, something the state is simply incapable of doing--nor should it try.
Well I don't know how those other companies are going to compete with the current "big two" of Wi-Fi, Linksys and Default, who are in such a fierce price-cutting scheme that you can get their services for free anyway. They have such great coverage, I think I'd rather get service from them than pay for it with my tax dollars!
I must insist you remove the tin-foil hat.
We seem to be having some difficulty reaching your brain waves.
There are places in the US where broadband is not available. *A collective gasp sucks the air out of the room* That's right, those places exist. For example, I live in the big empty spot in Virginia west of Richmond, east of Lynchburg, and Northwest of South Hill. There's no service here. The only hope of service is if the local public school system can get permission to put up a wireless network. (Which they're trying to do) The big corporations do not think it's profitable to wire the area, which is probably true. Heck, there's STILL no cable here; if you want TV, enjoy satellite or an antenna. It's so bad, Verizon won't even update the phone lines enough for me to dial in to any service provider at a speed higher than 26.4k. You read that right. And that, my friends, is why government should be allowed to provide internet. - Trip
2. That said, I am opposed to this law because it violates the principles of federalism and subsidiarity, i.e., power should devolve to the lowest level of government capable of handling the problem. Just as the federal government should enact no laws or programs capable of being taken care of by state governments (see also the Tenth Amendment), state governments should make no law limiting the range of freedom of local governments to govern themselves (naturally, this is as long as laws passed by such local governments do not infringe upon the guaranteed rights of it's citizens).
Thus while I think it's a bad idea for local governments to pay for free WiFi access, it's a worse idea for the state government to be sticking it's nose unnecessarily into local affairs.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
1) Free wifi is useful to the government as well as its citizens (think police, for starters).
2) Most of these municipal wifi plans aren't about competing with cable/telephone companies (though they will, obviously). Municipal wifi is usually about providing a basic level of internet ubiquitously
i think we need both to keep the other honest.
always mosh clockwise
If I remember correctly the things it takes for something to be a public good are that: Prvate industry wouldnt do it, or would do it poorly was in there somewhere but the actual ones 1. The beenefit to each individual is less than the cost that each would have to pay if it were provided priavately, and 2. the total benefits to society are greater than the total cost. A road meets these qualifications, Free wifi, probably not. Private industry already does this. the benefit to the individual is questionable, if everyone in the city used WIFI it would be terribly slow, and a state-run ISP would be a terrible cost to the taxpayers, and would effect even those who don't use the service. The total benefits to society are probably less than the cost, as it's not necessary for anything for people to be online.
It's competition, but how good is it? Is an open wifi network going to provide the same bandwidth as a cable connection? Sure, if you're the only one using it. Imagine how much slower it would be during peak hours. And forget about using a filesharing app, unless you can configure it to use port 80 or you don't mind having your bandwidth capped.
Sure, some people would cancel their internet service if a free alternative was available. But how many would try out the 'net for the first time, and then decide they want a better, faster connection? I can't say for sure. For the same reason, I don't think you can say that open wifi networks will cost jobs, either.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
1/ Quality of service. Government involvement doesn't stamp out competition. It could spur private enterprises to provide better, faster, stabler, less conjested service. It could potentially mean *more* competition.
2/ This is a public good. Many hard-core libertarians would disagree with money spent on public goods, and that's really just a matter of philosophy. But given the precedents of public parks (why build public parks when you could have Green Grass Enterprises provide parks and charge the little kids money each time they want to go down a slide?), public libraries (why have libraries when you can be overcharged by Borders?), a military (why have government build and own the nukes that protected us from the USSR and not NukeUSA Inc.?), etc., what is wrong with public Internet? Oh, right, Internet is more lucrative than the park business. Anyway, enough sarcasm. The point is, the precedent is set. Sometimes the line between special interests and genuine public goods can be blurry, but in this case, I'd definitely call it a public good, and by precedent, it should be fine!
3/ A rising tide raises all ships. Sometimes, social engineering is a good thing. Seeing as how much a paradigm the Internet is, getting people access to it can help change the nature of society. By the way, most economists (even conservative ones) consider education and information to be public goods.
One of the biggest problems with private run schools is that many have only focused on getting the kids past mandated tests. Don't assume all do a fine job. My public school, where I grew up were probably some of the best in the nation.
[Why don't we just privatize EVERYTHING, dammit!!] Why not? I haven't seen a good reason yet for government to provide any services beyond resolving property disputes.
You may wish to review the total fuck-ups some of the privatisations have been in the UK.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Does this prevent community based efforts? Not governmental mind you; but does this prevent a community setting up wifi access on their own? What if a neighborhood decides to setup a wifi grid so that everyone in it could access the net, is this prevented? I would like to differentiate between governmental intervention, or services, and people, citizens, working together to solve problems or create opportunities for eachother. Is this prevented by the law?
If your town wants to install WiFi, have the people interested form a co-op, and do it! No need to force other people to pay.
It will only be free until they decide to pull back from the price war and start making a profit off the service.
Thank God free software was invented and improved on by private enterprise, otherwise we might never have such cool tools as GCC or Xfree86 not to mention perl, Mozilla, and beowulf not to mention WWW and Mosaic.
"Do you think it should be illegal for public libraries to provide public hotspots?" You're missing the point. This is not about public libraries - they'll still be able to provide wireless hotspots. These bills are about municipal wireless efforts where the town is attempting to essentially allow free wifi access as a sort of public utility.
I can't help but notice that the cheapest, pay as I go, cell phone service still comes out to over $30 a month where I live in California. With an eye on the consolidation of the telcos I'm unconvinced you'll find cheap wifi in a few years if there's no mandatory price cap on basic service, such as there is for a home telephone (~$12/month IIRC)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is a "note to self", eh?
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
As soon as my metro area goes muni wifi, I am gonna cut off my DSL AND my landline. Buh-Bye Big Telco....
Good luck using a Free Software operating system on that muni network. Unless you're content with shitty NDIS drivers, you're not going to be able to connect to your socialist utopia without using an evil capitalist operating system from Redmond...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Why not? Halliburton.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
"Free" WiFi would be pretty cool.
Especialy if my tax contribution was way less than the cost through a provider.
Ideologically I oppose it but then again how many recipients of Government largesse are begging them to take it back?
Why is Wi-Fi so special?
If Wi-Fi is *freely* funded through taxes, then why are the following NOT *free*?
- telephone
- cable tv
- cell phone
- satellite tv
- satellite radio
The infrastructure to support wi-fi is not free (hardware, access points, maintenance, management, electricity) is free also.
Why should the vast majority of the population subsidize the small percentage of people who are interested in this stuff? It's not like Internet connectivity is *that* expensive.
This is why government-regulated industries and socialist ideas exist in the first place: Because some people as a group are willing to provide subsidized {access to new technology, farm aid, health care, social security} to those who are not able to afford it, in hopes that their efforts will eventually give economic stability to those being helped.
If you can't afford to eat, then clearly you can't even begin to worry about finding a job. Hence we have welfare. This application of the idea is little different: This "socialist" WiFi allows people access to technology that they would otherwise not have a prayer of seeing...which helps teach them English if they don't speak it, prepares them for the future, and makes them much more employable. This in turn boosts the economy.
And since private enterprise is so well-known for promoting global, compatible, open standards, I'm sure the Internet as we know it would be tremendously better if it had been privately created. I can see the board-room meeting now: the executives have a vision of a global, nigh-uncontrollable communication medium. No one knows how such a thing will enable the company to earn more profit, but they're not blinded by the stupendous nearsightedness of market forces. They want to do it simply because their private enterprise is streamlined enough to do it right.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
I did notice that. It makes me wonder what is going on. I am not really in favor of government doing this, but I do not think that we need to legislate it either. If a local community wishes to do this and it is voted in, then who cares.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your response is in jest based on the OP, but it certainly brings up some really interesting points.
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to have a computer of some sort in order to use it. Nothing I was born with allows me to naturally take advantage of this service. In fact, what we'll see is either a tax on computers being used to pay for the WiFi service (fair, but I'd rather pay for my own wired broadband if possible) or we'll see people who have no way of using the service (the poor who can't afford personal computers) paying for the rich who can. In general, I'm against such taxes, but that's probably how it will end up as any installation of this size will require significant maintenance which means a continual source of revenue.
Because Socialism is the best solution to the problem? I pay assloads of money into social security, disibility insurance, welfare, and other thousands of other "give-to the-poor" government programs for what? Go Libertarian, liberals are artsy fags.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
I believe the Fed misplaces 3.5 billion dollars each month. Here is some waste that you can read about also:
http://tinyurl.com/6ktn5
I look forward to a time when you can go to small towns across the country and see them revitalized by being well connected. This could be the solution to the last mile problem that the major telecom players are unwilling to solve.
Their cost/benefit analysis just doesn't have the community's interest at heart to the same degree that a mayor or city council will. This sort of legislation must be seen for the defensive maneuver it is.
Just ask yourself,
how much would Jesus charge.
Toll roads are generally better-maintained than government-run roads...
Well...You obviously never lived in Illinois. I used to drive I-94(toll, but it was still gov't) from Chicago into Wisconsin plenty of times. The toll road all the way to the border was bump, bump, bump over the expansion seams in the concrete. The moment I crossed into Wisconsin(tax payer funded roads) it was comparatively like a billiard table. Which states actually have privately funded highway construction and maintenance? The interstate system was a federal project.
What?
Here's the scoop: cities are free to give corporations massive tax breaks lasting decades to lure businesses and jobs, but they aren't supposed to be free to give wireless access to the people which can also make a city attractive to corporations?
It's always the bigger players that have the advantage. In this case, it's large phone companies that can write the laws to their benefit. Nobody who is in favor of free wifi is powerful enough to oppose them.
Corporations pull the strings, and government works at their whim.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Since when is public transit necessary? People can drive, ride bikes, or walk. Or they can take a taxi. Transit takes money away from cab drivers, you know. In addition, the advertising on the sides of buses competes against newspapers, radio, television, and billboards.
Since when is city water necessary? It competes against providers of bottled water. Is that fair?
Public schools and colleges compete against private and parochial ones. Again, is this fair?
Libraries compete against bookstores.
City garbage collection competes against private trash haulers.
Police compete against private security companies. Perhaps police should only patrol public areas. Anyone owning private property should hire a security company.
Public housing projects compete against private landlords.
Public parking lots and street parking competes against private parking garages.
The USPS competes against UPS, FedEx, Airborne Express, and others.
PBS and NPR compete against commercial television and radio.
My point is simple. We have many services provided by governments that compete against private companies, yet we see no problem with them. Some you may think are essential, and some you may think should be turned over entirely to the private sector. However, it's naive to go around saying that wi-fi isn't an essential service and therefore shouldn't be provided by a city when there are many other things that cities do that could also be classified as non-essential, depending on how you define what is and isn't essential. It's simply not a black and white issue. What a government should and shouldn't provide ought to be an issue decided by those who are governed, not by legislators bankrolled by big telecom companies.
If there's a mandatory price cap, what makes you think anybody will be interested in entering the market. Price caps only "work" once the technology or service has become a commodity and the businesses that provide it can be coerced by the government into continuing to provide it at a near loss.
Once they have the infrastructure in place, the government can muscle in and say, "Well, if you want to do business in this town, you have to agree not to make any money doing it. You can walk away and abandon your infrastructure investment, or you can play by our rules and not lose your shirts completely."
That's the nature of the great, altruistic, morally-superior-to-the-dirty-capitalists government for ya.
Dear duly elected state stenator,
I represent the buggy whip industry, and we would like to join the efforts against municipalities who are offering useful public services.
While we no longer pack the lobbying punch we did 100 years ago, we feel its important to make a stand here and now. It is not the cities place to provide mass public transportation on its roads. God created the horse to transport man. He gave us whips to get those horses moving.
Buses are bad, so are cars. Horses eat grass, and could be feed on our lawn clippings further protecting the environment. Even horse's shit can be useful in fertilizing and for electrical generation, Clearly Municipal governments missed the boat 100 years ago in funding such follies as public roads, and mass transit systems.
As a God fearing nation of people we implore our leaders to stop trying to mess with Gods plan, and threaten wholesome established industries. Much like our own buggy whip industry once was; simply because technology has made it economically feasible to provide such services.
Why should tax payers pay for things they might actually use more than say a library or more often than a park? To hell with the people who would benifit from those services, you need thriving industry lobbying dollars. Unfortunately at the time our industry did not react quickly enough, and we are but a footnote in history. Don't let that happen to what's left of the Bells.
Communications and access to information is a priviledge and should only be readily accessible to those who can afford it, and those willing to pay for it. Information and the internet most certainly are different than other services traditionally provided by local governments, like libraries.
We the buggy whip industry clearly messed up a 100 years ago. It is going to take a lot of effort to reverse the clear damage done to our industry by the municipalities senseless actions.
But here ans now we can help prevent a another senseless travesty by feverently supporting the telecommunications industry's oppisition to the communistic cesspools of municiple wifi Internet access.
Infact, I hear you can even get pornography, and other naughty things, for free on the Internet. I heard that terrorists might even use tit to communicate.
Surely a God fearing, senator representing good wholesome people in the worlds greatest democracy, will not allow these back water heathanistic towns to undermine the very fabric of our country.
Municipal wifi will taking jobs away for hard working telecommunications workers who often risk their lives high atop poles stringing cable for one of the great and lasting american icons. Municipal wifi will encourage people to get online and have access to dangerous information, and maybe even porn.
Municipal wifi is communism, it might even be an even more communistic than the GPL, and free software. (Those Linux zealots will undoubtably further undermine the economicy if allowed to leverage their radical beliefs to the masses with free Internet.)
For Gods ske this is AMERICA, we cannot block the internet liek CHINA and get a way with it. We need to limit the free flow of information more covertly. We have already made broadband Internet dangerously low priced. Higher government cannot afford to let everyone have access to the knowledge and power of the Internet. If that happens then things like Internet voting could become a realistic. Vote turnout would sore, and fine Senetors might become obsolete like buggy whips.
We the buggy whip industry implore you to NOT let our fate happen NEEDLESSLY AGAIN.
No private institution compares to the fraud, waste and abuse that is present in our governmental institutions. I'm not saying corporations are good, just that governments are not better.
Nobody in the future is gonna buy a house without good internet. Municipal-run Wireless, run as a joint venture between local government and one of the smaller Telecommunications companies, will make my home town "feasible" in the years to come. No private companies came forward so far to do this. How long have we had Wi-Fi, a few years? ANd what about satellite internet, how come its still 2x the price of DSL or cable when theres so many rural citizens who'd otherwise have bought it. Why? They dont give a shit about us. We're below their level of notice. If they cant be bothered to acknowledge out existence, they can all go to hell.
I sent letters to my state senator and representative encouraging them to vote against it when and if the opportunity came up, and I fully encourage any other Illinois residents to do the same. If you're not sure who your state senator and representative are, you can find out at Project Vote Smart by entering your 9-digit ZIP code. If your state senator is on the Environment & Energy Committee it's even more important that you get in touch with them.
My letter (adjusted appropriately for the recipient) reads:
fencepost
just a little off
All i have to say is the first one of my Senators or Representatives that brings some shit like this anywhere near the bill-writing paper, is going to get an earful and some pretty shitty press coverage (if they can slip it in between viagra and lexus ads and the endless yammering heads and new, pseudo-metal intros and uber camera crane swoop-intros to HARD HITTING NEWS! ... sorry for the yelling. How else the hell can you say it?).
Alright, i'm off topic now and will stop. But seriously, what the hell are they thinking down there? Follow the money to see where the bitching comes from - i'll tell you that.
As in the example of telephones, the profitable part is the additional lines, services not covered by basic service agreements. Basic service, IIRC, only applies to residences, not businesses, where the rates are truly impressive.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I pay assloads of money into social security, disibility insurance, welfare, and other thousands of other "give-to the-poor" government programs for what?
For the benefit of others. For the benefit of society. That's why we're a "civilization" and not a jungle. But I suppose you think that your current position in society is purely on account of your own merit, and everyone who can't swim should go fuck themselves, correct?
Go Libertarian, liberals are artsy fags.
Thanks for reminding me why I'm glad I keep the liberal company I do.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
the point is, should these not be decided on a case by case basis?
>Why don't we just privatize EVERYTHING, dammit!!
Having worked in and around local government (school district, city hall) for a long time, I've seen but couldn't do anything about an incredible waste of tax money.
This money could be better used to lower regressive taxes that hurt the poor like sales and real estate taxes. Low rent apartments residents pay a much higher percentage of their rent to pay for the apartment owner's property taxes.
Local governments should not provide hardly anything except the 16 items listed below:
1 Schools
2 Roads
3 Police
4 Fire
5 Water
6 Sewer
7 Ambulance
8 Criminal and civil courts
9 Jails
10 One or two county run hospitals
11 911
12 Disaster recovery
13 Airports
14 Building, health, and civil code enforcement
15 Libraries
16 Parks
Some of the most wasteful government funded things:
1 Loans to private businesses such as for stadiums for professional sports teams, convention center hotels
2 Ridiculously subsidized mass transit such as the $4 handout to each bus rider. It costs $5 per rider and a rider pays $1 or less to ride the bus.
3 Unused local government boards and agencies such as a regional sports agency that has sucessfully replaced the basketball, football and baseball stadiums within the last 7 years
4 Local access cable television given its high cost to veiwer ratio (and that only a few dozen people watch it at any one time)
You missed his joke about unsecured wireless networks that allow anyone to connect to for free. It's ok, everyone makes mistakes.
you could also once upon a time,
drink on airplanes flying between states,
being aged between 18&21...
'course, I also remember once upon a time, I could smoke on the airplane, and greyhound...
greyhound was the funniest, different towns in california had all kinds of rules, some towns, the driver HAD to turn on the interior light within city limits if it was night time, until the bus pulled outta town, and I know there was one town between Santa Cruz, CA and Los Angeles, where you could only smoke if you were in the last two rows of the bus (greyhound allowed it in the last three rows otherwise)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to have a computer of some sort in order to use it. Nothing I was born with allows me to naturally take advantage of this service. In fact, what we'll see is either a tax on computers being used to pay for the WiFi service (fair, but I'd rather pay for my own wired broadband if possible) or we'll see people who have no way of using the service (the poor who can't afford personal computers) paying for the rich who can. In general, I'm against such taxes, but that's probably how it will end up as any installation of this size will require significant maintenance which means a continual source of revenue.
Sounds a lot like telephones. You've got to have a phone to use it. People without a special use don't need it, they all live next to their family and friends anyways.
And television too. If you don't have a television, your're not going to get to see these "pictures that fly through the air" anyways.
And what the hell is with these roads? I can walk everywhere I need to go. I'm not paying for them, let the guys pulling carts full of crops to market pay for that.
Good thing we never let the government get involved in them.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
With Government providing internet access, it might be easier to track down or monitor terrorists and other illegal activity. I think this this would definetly improve our secirity and help prevent another attack by terrorists. It would help lawenforcement too track down people doing bad things on the internet. Something that is _hard_ to do already.
Is the bill more about eliminating competition or denying access to war-drivers? If the latter, the solution should probably be technological (requiring some sort of credentials for access, which can be obtained free-of-charge) rather than legal (banning all free access).
I don't need a *fast* connection for email, school research, even browsing /. but I do need *a* connection. Depending on the area that may be the case for quite a few people. Heck, if WiMax was available with its broader reach I suspect you could have some kind of business based on that - blanket an area with signal and provide free bandwidth-limited access to everyone, but charge for higher-speed connections. It's the wireless version of what Juno and NetZero and others tried.
fencepost
just a little off
I'll gladly pay ten years ahead...
Oh well, what the hell...
Is this supposed to be an argument for government subsidization? Television?
Telephones I'll grant you (though how instrumental was the government in getting these everywhere is something I'm not sure of). And I guess you skipped my entire point about roads, so I guess you'll probably just pick and choose from this post as well, meaning I may as well just stop here and let you continue deluding yourself with false arguments.
...as free WiFi. There's just WiFi that you're making someone else pay for.
I can see also that government providing our internet access would help with Homeland security tracking down terrorists. This would help them monitor the net and prevent another attack. Also, law enforcement would be able to track down criminals on the net more easily I would hope. Both help protect us; so these are benefits for sure too.
On this topic.
There are many telecom/cable people that are either being schooled to attack municipal FTTH/WiFI or have their own greedy interests at heart.
Don't also forget the shareholders of these companies who HATE whats good for the public as in affordable SUPER-HIGHSPEED 100 megabit FTTH or WiFi.
We in the U.S.A. need to organize fight the ANTI-Muni crowd !!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a large country. There are plenty of places here for which everyone who is working is working in an IT related area. For them, internet access is a necessity.
For those places, it's a utility. Now these places are few and far between, and that's exactly why there isn't wireless access everywhere.
Seems to me like these kind of places should get the Wi-Fi they want.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Presumably all those access points need to tap into a hard line run by an ISP or telecom company.
To me the thought of a variety of commercial entities all competing in a limited bandwidth range along with private use sounds a little chaotic.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
There are many telecom/cable people that are either being schooled to attack municipal FTTH/WiFI or have their own greedy interests at heart.
I posted this topic of Muni REAL BROADBAND(100meg/sec) on a messageboard and you couldn't believe the HATE by 'Republicans'
Don't also forget the shareholders of these companies who HATE whats good for the public as in affordable SUPER-HIGHSPEED 100 megabit FTTH or WiFi.
We in the U.S.A. need to organize fight the ANTI-Muni crowd !!!!!!!!!!!!
"These are very disruptive, low-cost technologies, and it's not in the incumbent telecommunication companies' best interest to embrace them," Gurley said. "But these are technologies that can be very beneficial to communities."
He(or she) offers two diametrically opposed opinions, and realizes what is best for the community, but seems more supportive in banning free wi-fi. Bad article... doesn't seem to say who this person is, or what position they hold either in government or private sector.
Another quote, this time from SBC spokesperson:
That's not to say they disagree with the wireless provision. SBC Communications, which has more DSL customers in the nation than any other provider, said cities should be allowed to offer wireless Internet access in public places, such as parks and libraries. But they should not directly compete with private enterprises by providing services to residents and businesses, said company spokesman Gene Acuña.
Also note, the telecom companies were not involved with writing the bill -- basically this proposed law is just a provision that a business or residential areas should not be able to get free internet via wi-fi provided by the government.
King's chief of staff, Trey Trainor, said they are rewriting the telecommunications bill to recognize that there are legitimate uses for municipal networks, such as public safety communication, meter-reading and other city services. King's basic objection, Trainor said, stands -- in a free-market system it's not acceptable to let public government compete with private businesses.
These telecom companies are wanting to get these people as customers and make it illegal to use a free wi-fi hotspots, but also distancing themselves by saying essentially that they are not responsible for the bill at all.
All in all, I am surprised the most reasonable causes for this sort of bill to go through have not been mentioned in the article: kiddie porn, spam, and hacking.
I see people using my access point for their main source of internet, either on purpose or accident. Big deal.
http://www.fsckin.com/
The reasons to privatise services vary from municipality to another. Is public wifi a good idea? I can't say for certain. Should a state ban such a service from local governments? Without a compelling reason, I would think not. If a local govt. isn't allowed to do this, who is? I believe that the purpose of this law isn't to prevent a few select entities (municipalities) from entering into this service, it is to ban entry from everyone (non-profits, local businesses,individuals...). The ultimate goal of this type of legislation is to prevent public wifi completely. Who will gain or lose from this action isn't as obvious as many people think; things like these are greatly influenced by the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The problem is the users
I believe the Fed misplaces 3.5 billion dollars each month.
Anybody know where I can purchase surplus couches and arm chairs from the federal government?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
- Service is available to everyone, rich or poor, profitable area or not.
- Seamless. The same service is everywhere in the region, not a patchwork quilt of services like we see offered by private enterprise today.
- Everyone benefits. Even non-users benefit from the increased access, communication, and education that others derive. I don't have to drive on a road myself to benefit from it: perhaps my mail, food, and books are delivered by trucks that use it.
I'm sure there are others.If a city isn't allowed to provide the service itself, it needs to be able to regulate whatever service is provided in a manner similar to what's done with CATV: e.g. require that the service is available to everyone, not just the wealthy side of town.
[place clever signature here]
...then get in contact with the representative that sponsored the bill in the first place. http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dis t=61&rep=phil.king/
There is a way we could attain democracy in communication, where every node is every home, but so that rich men stay rich, some will invoke the thousands of job losts that would happen if the industry would collapse. So as to preserve a few thousands job around the country we will make million pay every month of their life between 30-100$ per month, depending on their communication needs and means.
Business opportunity would arise and political democracy would reach a new level, I guess that is why we need those regulations...
There is an economic benefit to having your area be on the cutting edge of technology. It attracts and expands the "smart" base. This sort of move is very similar to what many "depressed" downtown areas discovered,they could make *more* money by not being dinks on the cheap stuff, such as a simple thing like getting rid of the penny ante nickel and dime parking meters, thereby encouraging people to come and shop and do business in those areas. Planting a few trees, greening it up, making it friendlier and more convenient. Short term, yes, it would cost money, medium and long term-well look around the world, places with more internet connectivity are doing much better than places that don't have that. It is that easy to see. And making it be all "private" just doesn't work all the time, this quarters "profits" mentality that is more or less the most common denominator of US business frequently ignores huge areas where the immediate profit margin isn't high enough.
Of course, to be fair, this is Texas you are talking about, where they are going to go to mostly all toll roads and football is a subsidised state sponsored religion.... Just a whole different mindset there so it's hard to figger. No idea really what they will do. My *guess* is big money monopoly styled capitalism in the form of some good ole boy backroom deals and some cash and hookers and booze will run the legislative vote on that issue, same as most places when something this controversial and of such a threat to the monopolists comes up.
From the news stories etc. regarding the free wi-fi debacle in Penselvania, it seems aparent the telecos were unwilling to deploy as the ROI was not there yet Therefore the City decided to do it's own rollout. I believe that the telecos are behind the movement to stop municipal wi-fi deployment as they view it as a viable resource for increased revenue in the future when demand picks up sufficiently. The truly bad part of this, IMO, is if states outright ban municipal deployment, what will happen in the smaller/rural communities where the small user base is insufficient to support the deployment of comercial broadband products? Where no comercial provider will deploy as the cost of the underlying infrastructure would either take too long to recover or potentially be unrecoverable? The States in doing blanket bans on municipal wi-fi would be doing a great disservice to such comunities.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
If they can do this, how long before public libraries are threatened?
Anyone else noticing that the end of free broadcast TV is already in the cards? And free Radio is not far behind?
America is becoming just like most the rest of the world, a place of stark contrast between haves and have nots.
:T:R:A:N:S:
The truly poor? I don't think so. It benefits those who already have a computer. There are far better ways to help those who can't afford internet service. This is really just a big freeby for a lot of people who can already afford internet service, taking away from the needy. A nice perk for the middle class.
Obviously this won't be free - people will be forced to pay for it via taxes. If there is enough demand for wi-fi to justify building a network in a town, then a company will probably do it. If there isn't enough demand, then the government will end up charging everyone for a service that only a few people are interested in - basically forcing everyone (including poor people who don't even own a computer) to subsidize a luxury service for a few lucky nerds.
>Selfish people get upset, but don't seem to care that half of their
>income taxes fund a ridiculous military that outspends every other nation on the planet by a wide margin.
Maybe you should look at page 74 of the 2004 1040 income tax instructions book from irs.gov to find that:
Federal government spending:
37% Social Security, Medicare
21% social programs (Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSI, etc)
10% Physical, human and community development (agriculture, natural resource, environment, schools, education, job training, etc)
7% interest on the debt
3% law enforcement and general government
and
3% veterans affairs
1% foreign affairs
and of course
18% defense
If I had mod points, I would mod this guy up.
) . The idea that I should be charged more for a faster connection when there is no technical reason for it is ludicrous.
It is rediculous that our government can be bought to create needless legislature such as this.
I've always been stifled as to how bandwidth can be turned into an artificial commodity. If I have a 100 MB switch, and connect 4 computers to it, they can all transfer at 100 MB simotaniosly (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/lan-switch.htm
This is where public access comes in. It is obvious this technology can make information more accessible to a degree previously unseen since the invention of the printing press. Why are people so bent on stifling it?
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
Another reason to hate living in PA...
I wish there were a (yes, negative) moderation option for people who drag out the old "What? You don't want the government to fund everything on the freaking planet? Hah, who needs roads (schools, armies, whatever) anyway!" cliche.
Phrases that fit a particular semantic regular expression could be turned into "Boobies!" or something, like on Fark.
My favorite part of this debate is Rep. King stating that you wouldn't want government to go into business by opening a grocery to compete with private enterprise groceries.
I agree. But if there was a single grocery chain in town and they refused to sell to people who lived in certain parts of town and set prices arbitrarily high compared to similar nearby towns that had more than one grocery, I would expect the government to try to defends its citizens basic right to eat.
They could encourage competition by helping other groceries open and defending those new groceries, or they could supply food to people who couldn't afford usurious prices.
But I wouldn't expect my city government to let people starve on the basis of competition.
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
"Nothings Free". maybe the government run the world by following old sayings... (waiting for a reply with someone giving an example of an old saying, and a smart-ass comment to follow :P (i cant think of one))
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
Local access cable television given its high cost to veiwer ratio (and that only a few dozen people watch it at any one time)
If it weren't for public access television, live professional television would be much, much worse. 99% of people who work in television (including me) worked in public access to gain experience before they did it professionally. It takes about three years of productions every week or so to get good enough to be a professional sports cameraman.
Imagine, if you will, the entry level position in your business being eliminated and the next level up becoming the entry level. That's what would happen to professional television if public access were eliminated.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
I'm waiting for the tsunami of examples demonstrating that socialism can provide services and products more efficiently than capitalism and the market...
t .html
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
Here is one of many such references: http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/robinstes
If you think about it, it makes sense that Medicare is a lot more efficient. HMOs and the like have complicated payment structures, require several authorizations for treatments, have various methods for billing individuals versus employers, have marketing costs, maintain lists of 'in-plan' doctors and facilities, etc. Medicare on the other hand has a list of who is registered and another list of how much they will pay for each category of care. Since there is only one pricing structure and one entity to send and receive bills, the whole operation is simplified and thereby cheaper to run than having many companies all looking out for their own profits.
Likewise, having a single large buyer allows for better negotiation with pharmaceutical companies. Why are drugs cheap in Canada? Its because the entire country buys them as a whole and refuses to pay the outlandish prices the pharmaceutical industry tries to push.
Want more examples?
Try education for instance. As a graduate of an elite private college I can attest that such institutions provide excellent (maybe even 'the best' possible, if there is such a thing) education. But efficiently? Charging $40,000+/year to give 2500 students an education is a hell of a lot less efficient than charging $15,000(or less)/year to give 30,000+ students an education that can be every bit as good (or at least pretty close) as one at a private institution. Whether or not the margin of difference in quality (and style) is worth $100,000 is up to the student (and their parents), but in terms of efficiency the public universities are the clear winners.
How about elementary/secondary education? Public schools routinely educate students on less than $10,000/year/student and educate millions of children. Private schools typically cost at least twice as much and educate only a tiny fraction of the number. Maybe their quality is a little higher, maybe not. My public high-school in rural PA was pretty crappy due to a lack of local tax base and PA not pooling education funds state-wide. The teachers did the best with what they had though and the district gave everyone a basic education at a very cheap rate. Quite efficient.
If we wish our civilization to survive we must break with the habit of deference to great men.
-- Karl Popper
Great doubt: great awakening.
Little doubt: little awakening.
No doubt: no awakening.
-- Zen koan
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
Sorry to reply to my own post, but Its should be It's in the fourth paragraph.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
I was driving one time and the toll road I was on sucked. Then I drove onto a taxpayer-funded road and it was better. This proves that taxpayer funded roads are better than toll roads.
to this:
I was walking down the street one time and a black guy mugged me. Then I passed a white guy and he didn't mug me. This proves that black guys are more likely than white guys to be muggers.
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit. The grandparent didn't say "The best tax-funded road is worse than the worst toll road." What he said was "Toll roads are generally better-maintained than government-run roads," which is true for the same reason any form of private property is generally better maintained than the same property own by the government. Private property owners lose money if their property loses value, hence they have an incentive to keep it well-maintained. By comparison, a bureaucrat isn't going to lose anything (other than MAYBE his job) if the government-owned property he's in charge of loses value.
live(free) || die;
We nearly gave large numbers of people free access to the internet, the best tool for education there is. With a brand new Linux PC from Wal-Mart coming in at $199 --> we almost had cheap affordable computer and internet access for everybody. Thank god the government is saving us from that horrible near-reality.
The Peanut Gallery, Ubergeek, Biblically Sober
NCAAbbs.com: Thousands of fans, Hundreds of teams, Just one place
This site has a map of the states with laws agains the municipalities or counties providing free WiFi and those that are being lobbied by the Bells and CableCo's.e rnet/=munibr oad
http://www.freepress.net/communityint
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/19/012620 4&tid=193&tid=1
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
You do not justify why this should be limited to those 16... Why not electricity for example ? Seeing the california disaster , I think many californian would agree... Bottom line what comes in your list of "governement funded" and not funded is only philosophy or politic. And if it is politic, then why not : 17 free communication to uphold free speech (since private ISP can redux free speech at will, well I jsut found a reason to have municipality funded communication !).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
There's no reason why a network run "for free" couldn't make money for the government and be completely free for the public in turn -- just establish the it as a network subsidizes most High School cable/satellite content these days. Let it be underwritten and sponsored by Macdonalds, Mobil and any number of other great companies like that. They are more than willing to let their names be applied to just about everything on PBS, so the same concept should be applied here.
Corporations can certainly compete and continue to influence as many people as possible into buying their lousy products.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
I don't want local government providing free wifi on the simple principle that it's not a proper function of government.
Government Internet actually is a wonderful idea. Now we can corrolate unemployment data with websurfing logs. When someone gets laid off, we need to track their Internet use and make sure they're spending their time trying to get another job. Society is bearing a great expense by providing for unemployment payments, food stamps, etc., and its important to make sure they're using their unemployment resources properly and not wasting the communities resources.
Likewise, there are standards regarding acceptable Internet use. If citizens are going to pay for Internet out of public funds, we have a right to monitor everyone's use and make sure that use is appropriate. People that download copyright files or access questionable content should be exposed and punished. How is this any different than stealing money from your neighbor?
Only public, government run Internet can ensure we have a way to make sure citizens are using Internet for the right reasons and are pursuing productive use of their time. Free, documented and policed Internet is the only solution.
Well, to be fair, there are a variety of WLAN cards (802.11a/b/g) which work with Linux and even some which work with FreeBSD (the voluntary-charity arm of the capitalist utopia (or the developers who just code for the hell of it without the borderline-explicit goal of tearing down corporations?)? After all, copyrights are still maintained by their authors, so they are still "property" of their authors). Even socialist utopians will work within a market economy to obtain the goods they desire... :P
:)
Anyway, the Netgear WG511T which I use on my laptop is one of them (and I highly reccommend it, BTW, even if it is still a bit pricey and devoid of an antenna jack). Use the madwifi driver for it on Linux (the driver is included with FreeBSD as ath(4)) and you're all set.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
... set up wifi, but whether or not we should be allowed to if we want to.
If the telcos have their way, this (and every other) discussion about whether or not govt should provide bandwidth in the same way they provide sewage systems and potable water in many areas will be moot - and quite frankly, the entire discussion of whether or not govt should provide these types of services is nothing more than a distraction from the point that certain powerful corporations are working very hard to take the decision out of public hands.
I personnally don't care to even give the telcos the chance to make this kind of decision unilaterally. And how much are they paying the state and local govts to castrate themselves (and thereby the public) in this way? The telcos are almost certainly breaking a whole raft of laws just to push this kind of crap legislation...
How's about: Coca-cola(tm) pushes legislation to prevent municipalities from selling potable water because municiple sales hurt sales of Dasani? It would make about as much sense.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Free crappy muni wifi is a HUGE thing for poor people.
Let the rich continue to buy their high speed internet.
Comcast is a rip off. BellSouth is a Mafia that advertises on the Super Bowl.
I buy crappy local dial-up and resulting tie up
my telephone with crappy internet.
There is nothing wrong with crappy free low bandwidth WiFi.
I do not see any fiber at my front door and if I ever do, it will be in 20 years from these corporate jerk providers.
OH, AND COMCAST bundles the internet with their TV service. I don't want their TV service.
The whole thing right now is a narrow CRAP rip-off.
MUNI WIFI is a good thing.
Private Sector is so skrewd right now.
MUNI WIFI would make those assholes think up something that works - real bandwidth and delivery of services.
Stupid copy/paste job on my part. PEBCAK.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
The Roman government used to pretty much feed the people of Rome (the city, not the republic or empire). Do you know why? Because if you let people go hungry, they get extremely violent. There's an old expression I read years ago, that civilization is three meals from anarchy. So while some aspects of Libertarianism may seem sensible, when it's taken to idiotic extremes it, like any socio-economic theory, breaks down.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not true. I'm typing on my laptop right now that uses native Linux wireless drivers. In fact, all of my wireless cards work with my favorite distro (Ubuntu) out of the box- it even finds my access point without me telling it to!
But I guess you are having to much fun calling Linux users "socialists" to be bothered with something like the truth. Good thing smart tech. companies (such as IBM) don't suffer from the same ego crises.
Open Source Sushi
You made the same point I did in your other thread.
I really need sleep now...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Ask any nerd who lived in Charlotte, NC in the mid 1990s and have 'em recall one failed publicly-funded internet service provider known as Charlotte's Web. Your only means of browsing the web was through Lynx, and while the Unix shell was nice, it wasn't really a shell -- everything you did was through Lynx, and it was easy as hell for just about every classmate in my highschool to root the system because the city hired a bunch of incompetent workers, probably freshly plucked from the DMV's bureaus, to be the server admins who knew nothing about security because the city couldn't afford to hire anyone better with their limited funding on the project.
It was a disaster. As much as internet for everyone is a nice idea, it cannot be reasonably achieved if the government has to behave as an internet service provider. And in lieu of the recent uprising in government's tinkering with Carnivore and other privacy-threatening initiatives, I don't think anyone would want the less-than-reputable government (be it city, state, or federal) in control of anyone's servers or routers, let alone wireless access points.
Thanks but no thanks, you can accomplish free wireless internet without the government's help.
Private education is expensive because the customers are rich.
If you want to send your kid to public school, all you have to pay is the school taxes, which you would have to pay anyway. If you want to send your kid to private school, you have to pay both the school tax and the private school tuition. As a result, almost all private school parents are wealthy, because they're the only ones who can afford to pay both the tax & the tuition. Thus private schools can charge more, because the parents can afford it.
If you implemented a tax exemption whereby any parent who did not have a student in public school did not have to pay the school tax, suddenly there would be thousands and thousands of parents who couldn't afford private school before but could now. In response to this increased market demand, more private schools would open up, many of them catering to the market of lower-income parents by offering even lower tuition rates.
And I can guarantee that they would offer a better education than public schools and a lower cost. How can I guarantee that?
Because if they didn't, parents would put their kids back into public school and the new private schools would go out of business. That means there's nothing to lose, yet everything to gain.
live(free) || die;
I can say that textbook facts show that government _administration_ is cheaper than the private sector in several cases. Usually where the government manages competition...the most poignant example would be the fund management for senators...i forget the name of the plan but out of all the options for implementing private accounts and fund management, bush's anonymous spokesman selected one where the government managed the relationship (i.e. competition) with the private sector--because it had the lowest administrative overhead and highest return. and as the single payer, the government has immense bargaining power to maximize services. In the much more visible case of medicare prescription benefits, lobbies stopped the government from having negotiating power...the issue is not legislative policy and not the executive policy...the commenter's ignorant distrust of government plays into the status quo by not holding _politicians and legislators_ accountable as they are in other countries.
The government can be very efficient in designing systems of inputs (both positive and negative) that encourage low cost, low profits, and high return on services, but it can only do so if people hold politicians accountable and ignore special interests (where appropriate) like the AMA or the chamber of commerce.
i'd like to see the pennsylvanian law, because in pittsburgh, I know that at least the airport has free wifi! http://www.pitairport.com/redirect.jsp
This topic was covered on PBS' NOW program last weekend.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW108 _full.html
Short version: Corporations are trying to pass laws restricting what duly-elected officials can do (viz, starting up wireless public networks), EVEN AFTER they have refused invitations to provide the service. (There's a story in the program about a small town that no company would serve, despite being asked, and how the town council did it themselves... and then the telecoms went to the statehouse to try and make what the council did illegal. Interesting.)
Part of the problem is about a year ago a small town wanted to put in local highspeed internet for their school and could also provide it to the town and decided that WIFi was the cheapest way. The reason they decided to was because NONE of the local or commercial providers would provide anything but dialup. All of them citing economic reasons that the town would only be able to have dialup Internet no DSL nor Cable speeds. But SBC was able to come up with both local negative advertising and lobbying money and a state wide lobbying effort to keep small towns from doing this for their citizens. Of Course part of the reason is to protect their near monopolies in the large/easy to wire areas, But it is also to keep the rural areas ready and locked in to them for Phone service since if the have WiFi internet they can cancel their phone service and use cell phones which are often much cheaper than tradition phone service in rural areas since the people you call are spread through many long distance areas.
Also while they may not actually write the legislation since they are paying fees to the lobbying firms that are writing the legislation I think we can see throught that.
I tried to get slashdot to cover the story of the FCC Commissioner member Michael Copps, who really slammed our American broadband policy here in this recent interview. But they rejected it. So here are some excerpts from the interview:
:
...
FCC Commissioner Says U.S. Broadband Effort Insufficient
Mar 1, 2005
ZDNet News via NewsEdge Corporation
Michael Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member Federal Communications Commission,
As a policy-maker, Copps is outraged that the United States isn't near the top of countries with broadband penetration. While admitting the difficulty in comparing the United States with Japan, Korea or Norway, Copps also voices the growing restlessness of government officials who fret about the private sector's ability to ensure that all Americans get access to broadband.
Big changes are reshaping the telecom industry. Giant mergers--SBC Communications acquiring AT&T, Verizon Communications swallowing MCI--raise huge questions about how consumers will be affected. More local-government efforts to create their own broadband networks are facing fierce resistance from the Baby Bells and cable companies such as Comcast.
Calling broadband "the most central infrastructure challenge facing the country right now," Copps is wrestling with how to turn the United States into the most connected country in the world. Can private industries do it themselves, or will it take a regulatory prod to get there? Copps recently spoke with CNET News.com about these issues, as well as the recent complaints of Internet phone service Vonage that it's not getting a fair shake from local phone companies.
Q: Looking at the state of broadband from the consumer perspective, is adoption at a good point right now?
A: Well, if I was a consumer I would say, "Why in the hell is the United States No. 13 and heading south in broadband deployment? Why are folks in Korea and Japan maybe getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price? I am paying for the slow setup I've got--that is called high-speed broadband?"
I don't think there is that much satisfaction with the situation we're in...I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment. We recently got a commitment on a goal, on an objective. But an objective and a strategy are two vastly dissimilar things.
Q: What makes sense in terms of a national broadband policy?
A: I think Congress is going to have to work through that. If we are going to fix the Universal Service system, which is predicated on the idea that everybody should have access to comparable communications at comparable and reasonable prices, we have to ask, is our advanced telecommunications part of that or not? Is broadband a part of that or not? So before we start fixing every little problem with universal service I think we ought to have some kind of a philosophical or national purpose or national objective discussion about where does broadband fit in.
I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment.
At the same time, the state legislature in Indiana recently shot down a bill that would impose significant restrictions on municipalities for launching their own broadband infrastructure services.
It's not an easy thing if you're the leader of a hard-pressed, cash-strapped municipality--as all of them are in this day and age--to take on additional burden of providing broadband to your people.
I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--"Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering w
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Is it really free if it's paid for by tax dollars?
;)
I get irritated by the usage of the word "free" to describe services paid for by money sucked from the paychecks of hardworking people, many of whom are excluded from accessing said services because they're actually out there, you know, WORKING and EARNING their money instead of sitting around like fat, lazy parasites.
But I'm not bitter.
But I suppose you think that your current position in society is purely on account of your own merit, and everyone who can't swim should go fuck themselves, correct?
No, just you.
Every libertarian I know gives loads of time and/or cash to charity. It is because they care about the poor that they want to crush the government bureaucracy which locks them into an inescapable cycle of dependence and perpetual "maintainable poverty."
You and the liberal company you like to keep is what we like to call "part of the problem."
There's an old expression I read years ago, that civilization is three meals from anarchy.
Actually, that's revolution, not anarchy.
Also, it's bullshit. Lots of people missed far more than three meals in a row during the Great Depression, and the revolution never came.
Oh yeah, and that loving Roman government which fed the people... It eventually became an violent, totalitarian dictatorship, as is the expected fate of any nation which lets their government have absolute dominion over whether or not people starve.
Just ask yourself,
how much would Jesus charge.
Ten percent of your income.
I don't think Adam will respond. He lost.
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
I think a better example for socialized health care would be the military's health care system, since there the government is actually providing the medical care as well. I'll not be the first to say that army hospitals deliver quality that is consistantly poorer than what one would recieve in a civilian hospital. However, I can say that in the few years I spent in the army I got to actually recieve medical care close to a dozen times (actually more if you count all the visits for a broken bone individually)...and in my first 18 years of life as a member of the poorer percentile in this country I saw one maybe a couple times.
The point? Many socialized services are not up the the same standard as their private counterparts (whether we're talking about medical care, education, OR internet access). But a better service that one cannot afford access to provides the same net benefit as NO service at all. The question you have to as is should (insert service here) only be available to those that can afford it?
When we include such things as medical care in the picture, internet access doesn't seem as important. But lets forget about that for a minute. Those of us on that are a little better off seem to forget that there are large numbers of families that can't afford high-speed internet access. Hell, some can't afford a damn phone line (yes, there are people in this country with no home phone service), which precludes dial-up. Monthly bills that never stop are harder to afford than say a couple hundred bucks one time for a used computer and a wireless card, which is about all the average family would need for basic internet usage. Hell, you could probably put together a good enough computer from dumpster diving or garage sales for next to nothing, and just add a wireless card.
So what does internet access actually offer the poor that is worth subsidizing? Certainly makes it no harder to find a better job (whether it makes it easier is up for debate). Might help the kids with schoolwork (and certainly makes a cheap computer seem like a better investment when it's not an overpriced typewriters). Can't think of others off the top of my head right now...but I'm sure we could come up with more.
I think the best analogy I can think of here is that this feels like book publishers trying to keep the government from supporting libraries because it decreases their sales. Except for some reason I think the telcos and such will win this one.
I think the question is not "Should this be a public-utility?", but "How can we involve private sector competition to fight/pay for access to the consumer, wherever they are?"
My personal feeling is that local municipalities should "own the road", but consumers should be free to buy their (NHTSA-approved) cars from anyone, or ride the bus, taxi, limo, bicycle, walk, or choose a toll road.
The internet and ISP's are a huge money market. Heaven forbid a day when it is free. What ever happened to the idea of a connected world with no massive underlying cost?
The article smells of money.
It doesn't seem to me like your "principle" is followed very closely in our current society, nor is it obvious that we are the worse for it...
In my scandinavian hometown free Wi-Fi are offered almost at every pub, cafe, hotel etc. Together they cover most of the city. The main reason this companies chooses to do so, is that it`s a very inexpensive way to get goodwill. Most of us still choose to buy our own line to secure stabil good speeds in our homes. Just like I still buy books in spite of the free books provided by our libraries.
"King's basic objection, Trainor said, stands -- in a free-market system it's not acceptable to let public government compete with private businesses"
We're glad someone out there finally understands the role of public government in a free-market system!
Dear Mr. Senator,
One word: The Police.
Sincerely,
Billy Joe Ray Junior & Jim Bob Jones
The American Association of Bounty Hunters
already happening with video tranmissions (see EFF's DIY tv, I panicked and almost bout a pcHDTV3000 but realised I don't live in a broadcast flag country.
.eu status on HDTV and broadcast flag?
What is the
This is certainly illegal... what am I saying, paying someone to pass a law that will force people to use your technology, and waste tax dollars that was is not illegal!
It is perfectly normal in every country in the world. *sigh*
Free WiFi is coming, but also is a EULA that will forbid the running of open WAP's, and TV license type wardrivers will roam the streets looking for your open access, and then fire a code at your box and KILL IT AND YOU AND THEN BURN DOWN YOUR BUILDING! This is the Neal Stephenson future of tomorrow, even though he is a dick writer and I don't like his books, he is a handy name tag to such corporate antics.
I like his lengthy disclaimers on how he claims to have thought of ideas, but actually didn't, who cares, look it is ok to write books using pre-existing technology and ideas. I liked parts of his books.
OK I have no more OnTopic to add.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I wasn't calling Linux users socialists, I was callling those who want to get provide wifi to all at taxpayer expense socialists. Sheesh you Linux users have thin skin!
In any case, I spent about two months late last year trying to find a wifi card for my laptop that would work with FreeBSD. There were no such things on the new equipment market. The only ones that I could find were used on eBay. The wifi manufacturers have deliberately closed off Free Software operating systems.
p.s. Oh, I'm sure you could name some cards that work. But after returning a dozen cards to Fry's, I simply gave up. This was after researching every card I bought FIRST. Cards that were supposed to have a particular chipset in them, turned out not to. I even found two cards with absolutely identical model numbers that used two different chipsets (and came with two different driver CDs), but neither used the chipset the Linux Laptop page said they did. Life's too short for that kind of hardware support!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Like research, particularly medical research. The government is currently the largest single funder of medical research through its NIH. Compared with commercially funded medical research, NIH-funded research has yielded the most important discoveries, both fundamental (basic science), and directly clinically relevant. It is one of only now a few areas that the US remains the undisputed global leader by far.
Or commuter transportation, like subways, bus systems, etc. Your criticism of subsidized mass transit neglects the huge benefit that cities derive from the reduction of auto traffic, parking load, pollution, development of local business economies and other factors that make mass transit a good investment when viewing the total economic, social and environmental picture.
I tried the WG511T last year with no luck. It was one of almost a dozen cards I tried and had to return. It actually worked better than the others, in that the driver would actually attach. But unfortunately that's all it did. Maybe FreeBSD supports it better now with 5.3 than it did with 5.2.
I'll give it a shot this weekend. If it doesn't work, expect me back here cussin' up a blue streak like a sailor that got his nut caught in the windlass.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Once again the forces behind failed business models are resorting to their last option: force.
The bad news is, this is going to be a pain for everyone if they push this through.
The good news is: its a strategy that has never worked.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
If you implemented a tax exemption whereby any parent who did not have a student in public school did not have to pay the school tax... ...Because if they didn't [offer a better education], parents would put their kids back into public school and the new private schools would go out of business. That means there's nothing to lose, yet everything to gain. (emphasis mine)
Ah, but there are several problems with this, first of all, public schools are in general operating on very tight budgets. As well, in most states funding is pulled mostly from the local community, not state-wide or nationally, so any tax credits are going to directly impact a single district. Giving a tax exemption to say, 3 students, would remove the input of one teacher's salary into the school while only lightening the effective load on the school by a fraction of that amount. Once the operating budget of a public school falls below a certain level, they will have to close and/or cease to provide a quality education for the children still there.
Yeah, maybe in an ideal world 'the all-glorious' market could eventually provide for some slight cost-efficiencies; but in the years between lack of funding would close public schools long before the replacement private institutions opened and became affordable, leaving at least tens of thousands of children without ANY schools. Likewise, as shown in GOP's miserably failed school-voucher programs, the amount of money spent by schools, even if fully given as a voucher to those who wish to go to a private school, covers less than half of the cost of a private school. This means that it is still only the wealthy who can afford private schools, but now at the same time the public institutions are being bankrupted.
There are several other problems with privatization of schools that have come up since the stupid voucher program was attempted:
- Public schools are legally bound to provide education to ALL people. Private schools can expel anyone they want.
- Many private schools give an education of stellar quality. The vast majority of these are not-for-profit institutions funded by tuition and/or donations. For-profit educational institutions as a rule do NOT provide the caliber of education found at not-for-profit institutions private or public.
The problem is motivation. Because corporations are responsible to their share-holder's profits alone, they will always choose profit over anything else that they are not legally required to do. How is one to ensure that these new 'market-driven private schools' that will supposedly be better at education are providing a quality education? Testing you say? Well, everything other than passing tests and profit will then be ruled out.
Heck, we even see this in elite Universities. At Columbia University for instance the Spanish department resides in a moldy, awful building while the sciences (especially departments related to biotech and pharmaceuticals) are swimming in funds due to the 1986 law which allowed Universities that receive public research funds (basically all of them) to patent their research. While Columbia and others institutions are swimming in money from patents, they are at the same time drawn away from goals of general education to focusing just on the profitable areas.
Markets are great for things that aren't necessities, where a lack of something at a particular point in time will not cause undue harm. It must be remembered though that the ability of markets to find local maxima is precisely because of their volatility. As you say, if they don't work, they go out of business. For basic services such as education and healthcare though, having the service 'go out of business' is not an option that can be allowed to happen. If there are no schools for more than a year thousands of children will rapidly become hampered and miss out on much-needed education. Such a disaster would lead to vastly greater costs to society in terms of remedial education, crime
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
While you're quite right about his anecdotal example is hardly proof, neither is your assertions & rationalizations which aren't based on any evidence either. "Aren't worth shit", to use your words...
But that rationale is false if those private property owners can get the gov't or some other sucker to bail them out or ignore their fraud (Enron).
You may have a point, G. W. Bush is living example of that.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Oh really? Tell that to Enron's employees.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Well, let me qualify my review with the fact that I haven't personally tried the WG511T on FreeBSD yet, although, it's looking likely that I'm going to install FBSD over my current Gentoo install (which the card works very nicely with on the 2.6.x kernel series).
So I might be testing the card w/ FBSD myself over the next few days...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
"My father actually prefers the satelite internet over broadband offered in his community."
Interesting statement.. why does your father prefer this? is it a simple cost issue (lower price), better customer support, higher bandwidth, lower contention ratio, even local network services... ? Not trolling, but I'm at university studying network access and interested in what 'value judgements' people place on their service. cheers.
Or free as "Using Taxpayer Money" kind of free?
Well, most metro areas use taxpayer money to help build stadiums for profitable professional sports teams to play in. At least free wi-fi I might personally benefit from. I mean, if we're talking about "wasting" taxpayer money and all.
If it's the latter, have the taxpayers forking over the dough had any opportunity to vote how they wanted their money used, vis-a-vis large metro-area technology installations?
Well, if this is the issue you have with it, they more than likely elected the officials who are making this decision...or the officials that appointed those officials. And since our governments, even at the local level, tend to lean toward being a republic rather than democracy, that probably qualifies as good enough...or as good as you are likely to get on an issue this small (I doubt this is a significant portion of the city budget for the year or anything).
Basically, the electorate put into office the kind of people who would support such things as "free" (as in subsidized) wi-fi in their city. If they didn't know they were electing these kind of people, then they probably didn't bother to educate themselves as to the kind of people they were voting for...or didn't vote at all. In which case they have no bitch.
But now this is moving into an argument as to the kind of government that is best, rather that having much to do with wi-fi. Even a direct popular vote on such a thing would not be perfect. Example: the athletics fee levied at the university I attended (before I got activated, of course)...nearly a hundred dollars a year. Absolutely no way to get them taken off, at least according to the several officials I talked to in several departments. They were passed by a majority of the student body. They tell me that I benefit from this, because I can go to any MSU sporting event I want to for free (as long as they aren't sold out, of course...because season ticketholders STILL get priority). Have I ever gone to a game, or do I want to? Nope. But every person that voted "no" still has to pay for it.
This is, I believe, the same way many metros decide whether to use taxpayer money to build major-league stadiums...direct vote on something such as a sales-tax increase.
Again, at least "free" wi-fi is something I can get behind, and would make use of. And it's probably cheaper.
We have many services provided by governments that compete against private companies What in fact happens now is that the government bodies hand out a very lucrative contract to one of the top five providers for several years at a time. Unlike individually purchased wi-fi access if something goes wrong you can't easily change providers - the capital/political inertia is too large.
These sort of contracts consolidate big companies and don't effectively discourage poor service. They rarely benefit local companies unless they are franchised or otherwise tied into the major players.
(You can also guarantee that mobocracy will rule - assumed MS PC and IE usage).
...about "land of the free"
That's the sound of humor flying between the mod's legs and remerging on the other side as "Insightful"...
...repeat after me. It is illegal for the government to compete with private enterprise..
Now, everyone go write that 100 times and turn it in by the end of class. Maybe then you will have learned something...
Someone is paying for it, most likely a bunch of someone's who will never use the service but have no choice but to pay taxes. If all money for this come form voluntary sources, then forgive me for not RTFA.
http://www.marxist.com/
Governments are great at running at a loss, simply because they can do it.
There is only one government i the US that can operate at a loss - the federal one. Every other government in the country must balance their budget every year. Yes, some of them issue bonds, or do other forms of borrowing, so they can spend more than they take in in any given year, but it's no different than any other business or individual that takes out a loan.
The one thing a government does have going for it over private industry is it can force all of it's citizens to be customers. If WiFi is paid for by the government out of say, property taxes, then the government has essentially just forced everyone to be a WiFi customer. Even if they don't use WiFi. Does that make it cheaper? Well, for people who use WiFi, yes. But it makes it more expensive for those who don't.
The question becomes, does the overall cost savings of having one benevolent service provider of which everyone is a customer justify everyone putting some money in?
I would say no - roads are necessary for everyone (even if you don't drive, the food and employees has to get to the grocery store somehow), police are necessary for everyone, but wifi is not.
paintball
gotta love that freeDUMB
let's see
local communities are forbidden
and it's against the law for people to give things away for FREE
and you must provide proof of identification to authorities
you must pay taxes
etc. etc. etc.
ya just gotta love that freeDUMB
won't want common local people getting to self educated or informed
now what was the magna carta
won't want them checking the original definition of terrorism
if ya want to play
i mean we the people
It's cheesy.. heck it's friday... sorry... Ahoogle!!
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
Coming soon to Texas: The Air Tax.
If you breathe air from within the borders of Texas, or within a "breathing distance" of 0.23 miles, you are subject to the Air Tax, which helps compensate the government for your consumption of oxygen and also provides monies to properly dispose of that nasty carbon dioxide that is exhaled.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Could Public Libraries provide WiFi to cover their building and surrounding area?
As far as a reference, Google helps find new information a whole lot quicker than a card catalog...
Of course when there's money to made for large campaign contributors and contractors their call for gubmint intervention reaches all the way to heaven where Jesus H. Cheney and his angelic minions hold court. Once in a while they send Tom "Former pest control bug spray guy" DeLay down to earf to threaten and lie and break federal election laws.
All is good in hebben, all god's chillun got wings.
or a group of individuals and form your own network. But, heaven forbid, others aren't forced into providing for something.
Government should be focusing on things it makes no sense for private industry to do: military, roads, police, fire, etc. That's the common good. Not I have an itch please come over and scratch it for me.
Water and electricity were privately owned around me...last time I looked. They were monopolies, so it makes sense to regulate them. But they were still privately owned.
If you want to organize and provide for all those other things among a small or large amount of people, please go for it. I hope government doesn't impede you.
People would never go to their neighbors directly asking them for money for all this stuff. But they have no problem taxing their neighbors for the same stuff.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
the one thing I have yet to see posted as a logical concern to this is the matter that this will effect not only 'public' wifi but more importantly will impede the efforts of schools and libraries to provide services... more and more schools and libraries are making use of wifi technology as a method of providing greater access to information. Take for example if I decided to walk into a library with my laptop to write a report on something, part way through my research I hit a snag on finding some tidbit of information... with wifi availible I need simple to hit google, but if this passes I'd be stuck using the libraries (probably ancient) computers which three other people are likely to already be waiting to use. the consequences of this bill are something to be taken very seriously.
Somebody has to pay for it. It's called taxation. And even people who don't have computers will have to hand over their cash.
It is shocking that so many slashdotters would gladly hand over not only their liberty but their network packets directly to the government.
There's nothing better than the smell of big government. Regulation. That's what we need. Regulation. The free market can't take care of itself. Let's regulate it. Never mind that dozens of companies are offering it for free as a "loss leader" for their businesses. Never mind that others are offering Wi-Fi for $2.95 a day, or $15 a month at other businesses. Or they give it away for free if I buy something ELSE.
For all you who love the French, Swedish, or German methods of socialism, go ahead. Keep it up. I think we've shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN that America flourishes when the market is left alone.
A newsmagazine show on PBS called "Now" last week did a feature story on municipal efforts to provide free wifi and industry efforts to thwart them via state legislatures.
One simple rule for its versus it's
The whole point of the lawsuit in Penn was it was unfair. The govenrment has free access to government buildings and that is not provided to the private sector. I live in a city and work for a small ISP, so I feel I can look at it from both sides.
My small city is doing BPL and 2.4 wi-fi from telephone/power poles (in select areas). But the city I live in does what it wants, doesn't put things out to bid, lots of other crap other governments can't get away with.
"Several telecommunications companies, which provide both dial-up Internet access as well as faster broadband connections through cable and DSL lines, say they were not involved in writing the bill."
(Putting on best Dr. Evil snear...)
Yeah... Riiiggghhht.
I don't believe for one second that the politician who introduced the bill isn't in at least one telecom or cable company's back pocket. It is Texas, after all.
If the telecom and cable companies offered good service coverage for a reasonable price, this wouldn't be necessary. Most of them have fallen WAY short of anything resembling good service or coverage, and certainly nothing affordable to many. I know people who pay over $100/mo for proprietary wireless access because they are "just outside" of a DSL or Cable service area. DSL and Cable internet service averages $40-$60/month throughout most of the country, on top of normal service charges. No wonder they want to shut out free municipal service.
Let's outsource and charge tons of money for something that government can provide for a lower cost! Yeah!
Remember, folks, this isn't about the service to the public. This is about Texas telecos' profits.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
1) what do you do for a living
2) imagine if the government started offering it for free and you were out of a job and your training became worthless.
Amazing magic tricks
The USPS competes against UPS, FedEx, Airborne Express, and others.
The USPS receives no tax money. It is fully funded by postage fees (more accurately, junk mail).
Your generalizations don't hold up for a second. Plenty of "give-to-the-poor" programs have been shown to straight up lift people out of poverty, not enslave them to some imaginary "inescapable cycle". That sounds to me like a poor rationalization.
I'd say if you're claiming that we're somehow hurting poor people by giving them things, you've got one pretty large burden of proof. You can spout all the personal anecdotes about generous libertarians you want to, but I don't believe for a second that enough good-natured citizens are queued up to fill in everywhere for government when it comes to assistance for those who need it.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
Oh come on. That's not use of a road. The only reason they're walking across it is because it's in the way! They would still be perfectly capable of getting to the market if the road was not provided.
>ten percent
But that's the cover charge -- everything after that is free.
>socialism
ROTFL
I don't agree that the government should be using their disposition (and probably deep municipal bandwidth discounts) to remove potential income from private industry.
By this rationale (and with very little exaggeration on my part), the govt. should stop:
Of course our society benefits from these things. And at the same time, there's opportunity for private companies to provide value-added services beyond what the government offers. Same with wireless.
The communications providers are worried they'll see subscription drop. Sure, some people will decide not to pay for service because there's an 802.11g signal covering their homes. But that's not going to even compare to the speed available via FTTH. At the same time, municipal wireless services brings internet connectivity to those who are impoverished and can't afford an ISP or maybe even a telephone service. These are the same people who can't afford to drink only bottled Ozarka water, or take their kids to swim at White Water on the weekends, or send their Xmas cards via FedEx.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
It bans the government from getting in to the wi-fi business with tax dollars. Honestly, you people writing these garbage stories are just making the average slashdot user a little bit stupider with every post. Any private company or individual can still offer wi-fi! GET A CLUE!
There is a reason my parents still have well water and a sceptic tank. Even in government, there are limits to what is considered an acceptable amount of service coverage. Even as free wireless becomes available in areas with large populations, I have sincere doubts that there will ever be blanket coverage across the US.
All of the anti-tax comments have the usual knee jerk semi-libertarian blindness to the over reaching concerns of monopolys (can you say Texas?).
They're so worried about their taxes paying for anything that they ignore any attempt at the common good. The roads that Haliburton delivers its $1000 toilets to cronies in the DOD are now going to be paid for by consumption taxes, because to tax business is anti-American. Of course, the obvious solution is to not pave the roads if the poor and middle class won't pay for it.
Reagan, having stolen the wealth of the US and broken the unions, passes on his folksie act to Clinton and Bush. (insert local accent) Taxes are bad because then the terrorists have won.
Of course you can't have the government competing with local businesses.. Imagine a government owned shopping mall that gave everything away for free, or a government owned hamburger shop that gave away food for free.. The government can't give WI-FI away either. But its residents can. So, Free Wi-Fi is in no way threatened.
Indeed if a road has sidewalks, typically the sidewalk is not maintained by the road maintainer, but by the entity who owns the land adjacent to the road. In many cases, all costs of road use by pedestrians are footed by individual landowners, and not any public road maintaining entity.
We're starting with the same base argument that you run into in this context (i.e. same as phone, cable, trains, etc) There's service and there's infrastructure. WiFi is no different. I think that WiFi *signal* should be ubiquitous. i.e. It's like power, water and street lights. Service, i.e. you're way to get out the the net, should be what your pay for (and where the market plays). In a perfect world, I go to the coffee shop, and I get a signal. Now, what I get with that signal is up to the coffee shop. If they want to pay a provider to provide net access, fine. Otherwise, much like long distance was, you can have an account with a provider and away you go.
It's really quite managable, the city could invest in the backbone, and use incentives to get private businesses to provide the signal (like some cities do street lighting) Providers would buy gateways into the local system (to further fund the upkeep).
In the end, everyone is happy (almost) customers get WiFi, the burden of getting a signal out to the far reaches of the area are fixed (funded by a small tax and possibly special assesments for the extreme cases)
vendors get a level playing field (opp, I guess they're not really happy then, are they >;), any technology marches on.
Now, before the ton of replies filter in on the issues with government, higher taxes, etc, etc, I want to point out the telephone, railroad, US Highway, etc. Perfect, no. In place and functioning? You bet.
Where's Philedelphia? Is it near Philadelphia?
I think you're right that there are good uses for this (e.g. library and school networks), but the examples you chose are just plain wrong.
The one big weakness of these free/municipal/non-profit wifi's is the question responsibility and the level of service, which is paramount with emergency services and also with business critical applications. If it's free, it's hard to demand 24/7 availability or support. You can't really base the operations of the ambulance service on something that's not going to get fixed before monday. In fact, they usually prefer dedicated and very expensive commercial networks.
In addition to all of demachina's excellent points (price as a filter for haves and have-nots, etc.), I'd also like to address this:
Erwos: Taxes, on the other hand, are not so clear cut. Your "free" WiFi might actually be costing a hundred bucks a month per person, more than the, say, $60 a commercial provider might charge, but since it's in taxes, you never actually know this. And, things will never get better, since commercial providers can't compete against "free". Everyone loses.
Like demachina said, this is mostly hogwash. Budgets and FOIA requests provide all of this information to the public. Some of those taxes even pay for accountants to make sure it adds up (relying on the assumption that you believe anyone is competent to do the job for which they are hired). Additionally and maybe even more importantly, if Tel-Co. can offer you DSL for $60 dollars a month then [rhetorically] how much of that is tax subsidized? Maybe it's as high as $40 dollars per account, at which point, I agree, "I'm not sure it's so clear cut." Who's the most effecient when a small government can do it themselves for $100, or a commercial interest can accomplish a cost of $60 only with a $40 subsidy. For the small towns pressing against these kinds of laws that means 3000 clients [+/- 80%] (I don't know if Tel-Co. would even dare to expand for 3000 extra accounts). IMO, the small government would be more effecient in this case, as whenever money changes hands there is a lose.
As it must be pointed out elsewhere, broadband is a neccessity for modern businesses. It is in any municipalities best interest to allow business within their sphere of tax-influence to be successful. Municipal wifi isn't just about serving the out county geeks with ISOs, it's about allowing local craftsmen the ability to sell on the web, local fabricators to handle large bids and meshes [filesizes], or local tourism interests to attract world-wide clients. More business means more tax revenue.
Oh, and another aside, small towns need broad support (from us uptown living, broadband having geek-elites) against these bans as their vote-power is often weaker than Tel-Co. lobbyists' (as seen in Pennsylvania, where only Philly had the clout to exempt themselves from a similar law).
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I wish I was close enough to my telco central office to order a Speakeasy DSL line.
Pessimistic, but probably true. :-\
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
See Democrappy's analysis for more insight into the politics and neo-McCarthyism behind some of this.
Cool funny t-shirts for geeks, gamers and everyone else
In many cities and esp. those involved in wifi access for the 'under-priveledged', computers are sold to them second hand at very low prices. In addition, the wifi access is billed to them at $5 dollars a month (in Philly anyway). In this way people making maybe $1000 a month can still afford to have broadband (and then enjoy the benefits you point out, from job training to OpenCourseware).
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Spoken like someone who really has never known a poor person or has taken any interest in the life of a poor person.
... 'spoken like a Republican'. Ha. I'm just kidding about that blanket accusation. I know just as many Republicans are passionate about the poor as there are cheap-sneaker-wearing poor people.
;(
You mean
I foed Will for his blatantly bigotted point of view. I don't come to Slashdot to talk about huge swaths of the urban population as "drunk, substance abusing, illiterate, expensive sneaker wearing, cable tv watching, bass booming ruffians." That kind of attitude fucks people who live in the city. People like me. Grrr.
If only Will Malverson was kidding when he described all poor people.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
That's a very misleading statistic. You're implying that low overhead is the same as high efficiency, but the two are only tenuously related.
Medicare has much lower overhead, certainly, if you define overhead as "dollars spent minus dollars paid to health care providers", but vastly higher overhead if you consider other issues, like fraud. Medicare fraud is estimated at approximately 10% of the entire Medicare budget. That means that on the order of $40 billion per year is stolen from the system. Note that a significant part of the "administrative overhead" of private insurers is the effort applied to detect and avoid paying fraudulent claims (done mostly by vetting physicians, verifying the delivery of services with patients, etc.).
And there's another issue: Unnecessary services. Medicare will pay for pretty much any service the doctor deems necessary, as long as it's on the list and as long as the doctor charges the specified rate. Private insurers annoy doctors and patients with their insistence on getting prior approval for certain procedures and their refusal to pay for some procedures, but those are important cost-control measures, and they help keep our premiums down. But implementing those cost-saving measures increases 'administrative overhead'.
A higher administrative "overhead" may very well result in *lower* total costs for the same level of service provided.
It's not a good measure of efficiency. In fact, too little administrative "overhead" is likely worse than too much.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
We're quickly moving into an age when the ability for a person to have access to the internet isn't an option anymore, but a necessity. Governments providing basic internet services to the community is very logical in helping progress our society forward into the future. Bills such as this which explicitly outlaw such things is absolutely moronic. As for the people who fear the destruction of competition.... it's unfounded. I can still get TV over the airwaves for free, but the cable companies seem to be doing just fine. Just because the service is there doesn't mean that there can't be better alternatives available. The government shouldn't be investing in the technology to give everybody 100GB/sec download and upload speeds anyway. The only really destructive things I see in public internet anyway is the ability for Big Brother to be perpetually monitoring us.... and the fact that WiFi really needs to get locked down in terms of security, or such kinds of public internet services could spark unprecidented numbers of identity fraud cases to a point that it becomes epidemic.
A community-oriented lyrics site
Ever looked for the taxes on your phone, cable, or ISP bill?
Yeah, taxes there too.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
An underlying thread of this thread is that government run operations are inherrently wasteful and privately run operations are efficient. If you consider the hardware and utility costs for private versus public wireless coverage for the same area, they should be the same. Now factor in the wages of the people that manage the system and those that manage the workers. If the price of both systems were equal, either the workers of the public run system must be overpaid or over staffed, or the private run operation workers are underpaid or understaffed. The assumption here is that the private run firm must have some profit left to divy up to the stockholders after the CEO has been compensated way more than a public official.
If you read the article, you'll see that this particular network is by a non-profit organization which will provide free access to low-income residents, and charge for higher rate access.
How to object to this?
Public schools routinely educate students on less than $10,000/year/student and educate millions of children. Private schools typically cost at least twice as much and educate only a tiny fraction of the number.
My oldest son goes to a private school. We pay $3,500 per year.
For that, we get:
On the other hand, I have two children in the local public school. The state (Utah) pays $4,500 per year each for their education. For that, we get:
So the very cost-effective public school system (a) costs $1000 per year more than the private school, (b) provides a lesser educational experience, (c) requires parents to kick in additional hundreds of
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The examples may be wrong, but I'm not exactly pulling them out of my ass...
From the New York Times: "City officials envision a seamless mesh of broadband signals that will enable the police to download mug shots as they race to crime scenes in their patrol cars, allow truck drivers to maintain Internet access to inventories as they roam the city, and perhaps most important, let students and low-income residents get on the net."
you said: Our taxes will pay for it instead of the users. Considering only people with enough money to buy a computer really benifet, it isn't fair to use everyones taxes.
To which everyone pointed out: duh, we pay for a lot of shit with taxes that we might not use.
To which you insinuate: well we have usage-related taxes for some of these cases.
(I guess you must have thought of, um, police taxes for when we buy something we'll commit a crime with, like a hammer. Maybe they'll change the name of sales-tax to 'everything that isn't covered by some other usage related tax tax', that would bolster your argument.)
I agreed: Yep, we pay plenty of taxes for the service we're talking about, communication taxes.
I guess my point was "death and taxes".
You're saying "just because I pay communication taxes for my Internet service, that money shouldn't be used to give anyone else communication services."
You've admitted already that you are biased, so don't take it personally. I know you can't see the obvious benefits to small towns because you are in a position that feels "robbed" when municipalities give away access you want people to pay for.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I have a private ISP who provides me 5 Mbps symmetric service for $40/month. Of course, I also shopped for apartment complexes with that in mind, and found one pre-wired with ethernet.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One thing I like about most gov't funded roads is that most of them don't say "Private Property-Keep Off". In other words, everybody has access to those roads, not just the owner or the highest bidder. That trumps your damn property values any day of the week. A person's ability to travel is more valuable to me. Some things are good to have funded by that "One Stop" shop we call gov't. I'd rather pay money to one person to administer to the proper places than to have to pay out a thousand different checks for every little services I use. There are things I trust the post office with more than FedEx. In fact, probably the only reason FedEx is any good at all, is because they have to compete with the post office. I also trust the gov't to do a better job at keeping the lights on. Of course that only applies to the U.S. Down here, we get knocked off every time it looks like rain. Things work better when we have alternatives, and sometimes gov't is a good alternative. It helps keep the private guys more honest if we, the community(gov't) give 'em actual competition.
What?
I think people here are forgetting that next year, a new, higher-capacity wireless networking technology called WiMax (802.16 and 802.20) will start to roll out from various companies.
Unlike WiFi, WiMax is designed specifically to handle very large numbers of users from a single transceiving antenna array and could become the way that the entire USA gets large-scale broadband Internet access; it's far cheaper to put up transceiver towers and/or adapt current cellphone towers for WiMax access points than to hardware broadband Internet connections via cable or DSL to every residence, especially in rural areas or areas where ripping out legacy telecommunications wiring is too expensive.
Given the potential considerable expense to setting up WiMax hardware, I expect WiMax to be paid service only, probably being charged US$29.95-US$34.95 per month for unlimited access.
Well, FYI, I tried my WG511T with FreesBIE 1.1 today. I loaded up the ath_hal driver, set my WLAN config (my 4 128bit WEP keys, etc.) did "ifconfig ath0 up" and ran dhclient.
:-/ But, if I was able to connect to diff. boxes on my LAN, then the problem almost certainly is one w/ my routing config in FBSD or on my gateway, not w/ the ath driver...
I got an IP from my router and could connect to any other host on my LAN. Seeing as FreesBIE 1.1 is based off of FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2, the card should work in a normal, latest-stable FBSD install.
The caveat to my troubles was that for whatever reason, I couldn't access hosts outside my LAN, only within it. I initially thought it was the MAC filter on my WLAN router, but my MAC address is in that table and allowed through, so that wasn't the problem - and for the moment, I don't know what is...
This was all 802.11b, BTW. Haven't tried 802.11g or the 108Mbps "Super-G" modes yet (IIRC, the 108Mbps mode doesn't work yet on FBSD).
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?