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.
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.
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....
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!
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.
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
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
>>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.
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!!
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
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 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)
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.
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.
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/ 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.
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.
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 /. has already gone down that long road arguing the pros/cons of sharing bandwidth with your neighbors, I know all the arguments, I've done all the precautions, we're not going there for this discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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
This isn't entirely about free internet access though...
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." The other good quote from this article: "'Government doesn't do service well,' said Eric Rabe, vice president for public relations for Verizon."
right. because Verizon DOES do service well. oh, the irony.
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).
...as free WiFi. There's just WiFi that you're making someone else pay for.
"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/
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.
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
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
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)
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;
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.)
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
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...
"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
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).
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!
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!