FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi

Cryofan writes "Michael Copps, one of the five members of the FCC, spoke on the recent controversy over legislation to outlaw municipal WiFi: "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 with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace...a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'"

Comments

I'm mixfused

[Attackman]

Am I supposed to like these guys now? It's rare they say anything that I agree with. Who knows, maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV.

Re:I'm mixfused

[ackthpt]

Am I supposed to like these guys now? It's rare they say anything that I agree with. Who knows, maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV

Reading the FCC board?

Muni WiFi OK

Boobs on TV not OK

Surfing pr0n over Muni WiFi ?

"Officer, that horrible man is looking at women's bare ankles on a computer, over the Municipal Wireless! Oh, I'm so shocked, I've a good mind to write my a letter to my ultra conservative congressional representative!"
"Lady ... that's him looking at the computer and rubbing his crotch."

Re:I'm mixfused

[Anonymous Coward]

The The Whitehouse has an interesting comment on this.

Re:I'm mixfused

[nofx_3]

"Whitehouse.com will be opening its doors in February. Something big is coming. Check back soon."

1. What the hell happened to my beautiful P0RN?
2. Um... Isn't it March already, what year were they talking about.
3. ?????
4. Profit!!!

-kaplanfx

Re:I'm mixfused

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey. I run a Wisp in Texas. I'll tell you about the muni community. We're based in Greenville Texas. When I applied for my tower permit the muni goverment delayed going back and forth for over a year while they put in their own competing cable TV and internet company using my tax dollars. If that were the end of it I might still be able to forgive and forget... But the love from the city just keeps coming and coming.... I've got at least 50 letters complaining about everything from grass hieigh to signs over the last 3 years. It's bad enough they subsidise the people porn habits using their utility (Oh did I mention their the monopoly power utility an trash utility) monies, but they are basically business unfriendly in every possible manner. Must munis are the devil! Happy Trails! Marco Coelho President, Argon Technologies Inc. Greenville, TX www.argontech.net www.troophelper.com www.phantomwave.net

Re:I'm mixfused

[deanj]

"maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV."

Actually, this is the guy who's been advocating the strong FCC push during this time, so I would say that he's definiately NOT in favor.

From this article

Since the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl, there have been strident demands for a crackdown by a tougher, stricter Federal Communication Commission. The FCC's various commissioners now call for the power to regulate cable television, in addition to broadcast media. In June Congress voted to increase the maximum fine the FCC can impose tenfold, from $27,500 to $275,000. Commissioner Michael Copps has vowed that he will not be satisfied until "I see us send one or two . . . . cases for license revocation."

And, as others in this thread have pointed out, a Democrat.

Funny how none of this would apply...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if he was talking about indecency.

Re:Funny how none of this would apply...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has limited juristiction for community-television on cable.

If you look at the Community stations in San Francisco and NY, you'll see things like a naked guy riding a bicycle, and other 'indecent' programs.

Re:Funny how none of this would apply...

[M-G]

Yep, because Copps is one of the biggest puritans there when it comes to indecency. Funny how he doesn't depend on the market to deal with that issue...

IMichael?

[XanC]

Is he an Apple product, or does he just chat online a lot?

Either way, hardcore!

Re:IMichael?

[Temporal]

I thought he was a COM interface at first.

Re:IMichael?

[winstonmeister]

I can tell you're neither a Mac user nor an Apple watcher. The true believers know the i is *always* lower-case. ;)

Re:IMichael?

[cgenman]

FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi

"So he cops in?"
"No Copps is out."
"He cops out of what?"
"Wi"
"Because I'm asking you."
"Wi"
"Because I want to know!"
"WI!"

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait...someone from the FCC is making sense? They want to allow something rather than side with big business??!? Up is down left is right...nothing maes sens anymore.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

especially that last clause

This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Cryofan]

2 of the 5 FCC members are Demcrats. 3 are Republicans.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[tealtalon]

I am ignorant on the actual workings of the FCC, but this strikes me as odd. How can a panel of 5 people, with political party ties, have a say over what can and cannot be broadcast or seen in this country.
This just strikes me as terribly wrong in a very basic way.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Martin Blank]

The FCC is provided certain authority to exercise controls over broadcast and telecommunications media. This is provided by Congress in an effort to provide some level of regulation in the public interest. Members of the FCC are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. They enforce limits on what can be said based on Congressional approval and court decisions.

Note that the opinions of even "predictable" members of the commissioners can be unpredictable. Powell recently said that he does not believe that the FCC has or should have the authority to regulate cable or satellite TV and radio. Despite being accused of being in the pocket of the companies over which he holds power, he has also come out in favor of time-shifting (once he got a TiVo), something that has rankled the heads of some media companies. Predicting what the FCC is going to do is like predicting how the Supreme Court will rule: you can get close most of the time, but you can never quite be sure.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Handpaper]

2 of the 5 FCC members are Democrats. 3 are Republicans.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.

To explain further, I live in the UK, which currently has a government formed by the 'New Labour' party. Historically, the Labour party has been Socialist in ideology, born as it was from the union movement. Yet this government has gone further down the road of privatisation, especially of public services, than the previous, nominally Capitalist, Conservative party ever dreamed of. The party name no longer tells the whole story, if indeed, it ever did.

Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.

Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[abulafia]

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

Pie.

Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?

They are government officials with publically declared party allegiance.

What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.

I can see why it looks that way, from the outside. I think Slashdot groupthink is naive libertarian (small l; continental types would call it 'liberalism') in the way you mean, except when that means that some scum sucking profiteer might win; then the horde is pro-"justice". Really, generally much more 'liberal' than the U.S. at large, and not that different than other countries. The US is shifting slightly harsh-authoritarian, rather than touchy-feely authoritarian, which is a shame. I don't want to move countries that much.

Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.

Actually, it does, here in the US. There's quite a bit more of a culture of block-voting, support-the-platform, even-if-it-is-wrong here than in England or many other Euro countries. I could philosophize on why, but will desist. Suffice to say, partisan politics are very entrenched at this point.

Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.

Now you're catching on. The worst part is, the Demos are starting to become the same way, out of self-defense. Which, of course, they have to.

I hate both of them just about equally. Too bad they're spiraling off into heavily optimized fuck-the-world politics.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Madcapjack]

The airwaves are public domain. They are leased to companies on the condition that their broadcasts make some minium contribution to the public's welfare. This is reasonable, since radio spectrum is a seriously limited resource.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a boy-toy, retard.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Jerf]

The US is shifting slightly harsh-authoritarian, rather than touchy-feely authoritarian, which is a shame. I don't want to move countries that much.

Give it a bit of time, first. One of the natural balancing mechanisms in our system seems to be that once one party is in charge, they inevitably over-reach and fall out of favor. Even as I support our President and believe in the foreign policy quite strongly (and note that I say this to establish my bias, not as some sort of subtle request to be "corrected" as some knee-jerkers seem inevitably to intrepret that as...), I see a lot of signs this is happening on domestic issues quite a bit. The polls and my general sense is that the President, for better or for worse, is not convincing people there is a Social Security problem. They're over-reaching on "decency" issues that really only a few loud people care about. A side effect of all this stuff in the Middle East is that in another year or so I expect people to start being able to ask whether we really need all this abusive airline security and other Patriot-Act-esque other things without it being political suicide.

The pendulum swings. The only reason it seems hopeless right now is that the Democratic Party itself seems to be dying, but that's ultimately not a big deal. The interests it represents aren't going anywhere and something will effectively replace it. (I'm still on the fence as to whether it will bear the name "Democratic Party"... it's still not looking good, but in the end it's of little consequence.) Were it not for that it might already have started to swing back. Hang tight for a bit.

(But brace for 2006; I see no reason to believe that the Dems aren't going to lose yet more seats and they are already nearly out of time to put into motion the necessary changes to avert that outcome. But "the worst" is over, I think, in most regards; I don't think we're going to get much more authoritarian. Right now our problem is the ways in which both parties are happy to sell us out, like patent issues and the way that "small government" seems to be MIA.)

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[zors]

Actually, it does, here in the US. There's quite a bit more of a culture of block-voting, support-the-platform, even-if-it-is-wrong here than in England or many other Euro countries. I could philosophize on why, but will desist. Suffice to say, partisan politics are very entrenched at this point.

What are you talking about man?

US political parties are considered "irresponsible" parties in most European countries. This means that individuals are free to vote against their parties, free to walk across the aisle to form alliances on their own, etc. without risking party retribution, (at least retribution as severe as in some other countries, where your career is over if you vote against the party. That might also stem from procedural differences between parliamentary democracies and the American system.) This is part of the reason why we have two big tent parties instead of multiple exclusive parties, like you see in alot of europe in particular. Also, this contributes to the existence of Schwarzenegger "Republicans" and Zell Miller "Democrats".

At the moment of course, the country may seem much more polarized along party lines, but blue states still elect republicans to some positions, and red states still elect a few democrats.

Of course, since this doesn't directly bash Bush, i'll probably get modded down.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[redsilo]

With some reluctance I join this discourse. I will be brief. Mr. Copps has made a decision I agree with. I will spend the time I might otherwise spend on here hunting him down to congratulate him on his wisdom. kk

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Atzanteol]

Actually, there can be no more than 3 people of any one party on the panel.

So yes, they have party ties, but at least they make an attempt at keeping things 'even' of sorts.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[Atzanteol]

My god. If only I had mod points to give you.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[jbolden]

He's talking about the membership at large not the legislators. European parties don't have millions of people who volunteer money.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[unitron]

" The airwaves are public domain. They are leased to companies on the condition that their broadcasts make some minium contribution to the public's welfare. This is reasonable, since radio spectrum is a seriously limited resource."

They aren't leased, the use of a particular frequency via a specific method at a specific power level at a specific location is licensed to specific individuals or organizations. In the case of over the air radio and television stations the owners are licensed to operate "in the public interest". (the devil, of course, is in the details of defining "public interest") The license holders often pay various fees but not lease payments.

Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican"

[falconwolf]

I think Slashdot groupthink is naive libertarian... partisan politics are very entrenched at this point.

I don't know about others here but while I consider myself Libertarian (big "L") I have voted Democrat, Republican, and Reform Party as well as LP (Libertarian Party). I vote on the candidates' positions on the issues that concern me not on the party platform.

Falcon

YES!!!!

[Chaos750]

Finally, a politician that makes sense!

That can only mean he's a robot. Oh well, I for one welcome our logical clear-thinking robot overlords, and wish them luck in getting rid of the current government =)

Re:YES!!!!

[Joey Patterson]

Well, his name is IMichael, so he might be a robot.

Re:YES!!!!

[ScrewMaster]

His real name is R. Daneel Olivaw, but we aren't supposed to know about that yet.

Re:YES!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, a politician that makes sense!

Pfft...Like that will get him anywhere. Maybe chief editor for Slashdot. Can he spell?

Be still my heart ....

[El Cubano]

Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--'Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace...a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'

Someone in the federal government actually understands the role of the federal government? Sad to say, he probably won't last long.

Re:Be still my heart ....

[cybrthng]

Uhm.. so your saying that someone who says the government isn't here to control municipalities is a bad thing?

He is saying the municipalities are allowed to do whatever they wish. You have the right to vote and make your voice heard within that municipality so if your against it speak your voice..

otherwise just get out of the way..

Re:Be still my heart ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his problem is with the left only championing federalism when it suits them. Which makes them as bad as the right in this area.

Re:Be still my heart ....

[thank-u-for-sharing]

This is freaking me out, man! It must be some kind of reverse psycology conspiracy b*llshit, man! I'm outta here!

Re:Be still my heart ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,he'll be hired by one of the Corporate Criminals,to keep our Gov.as ignorant as possible for the Benefit of the ruling Mob.

Re:Be still my heart ....

[quarkscat]

Unfortunately, you have a high probability of being correct in drawing this conclusion. Both common sense AND a sense of fair play (eg. level playing field for competition) seem to be in very short supply with the current regime.

This is definately OT, but I am reminded of a small Kansas meatpacking company that spent millions of dollars to build a new facility. Their goal was to test each and every cow for BSE, in order to cater to the beef import markets of Japan and Korea. Dubya's USDA and FDA forbade this company from proceeding with their plans, no doubt due to pressure from the big meatpacking companies that will never submit to such a rigid testing program. Dubya's notion of free enterprise only applies to the "big boys" that can afford to buy their politicians.

Re:Be still my heart ....

[cybrthng]

How is this championing when it suits him? I don't think he owns a media company, i don't think he was sponsored by a fortune 500 and i don't tink his PAC support was all that much to lean him towards "helping us out".

Politics is politics, but we can't discount people who DO work and do their job simply because you focus on the people that don't.

make up your mind!

[museumpeace]

either wifi is a public infrastructure like roads and rails or its not. if it is, the "state" in its more general sense has a power and an obligation to see that this data road of the radio frequencies reaches all the citizens and it has the power to collect our taxes to make sure the infrastructure is adequate in capacity and properly maintained.
if its NOT, then let the moneygrubbing telco's sharpen their knives and move in.
but as I road-warrior-drive about, I don't want to be disconnected at every jurisdictional and regulatory boundary such as state lines and city limits.

Re:make up your mind!

[Daetrin]

In one of those cases the government shouldn't be telling communities not to build local wifi coverage unless that government already has plans to do it for them, and in the other case the government shouldn't be telling communities not to build local wifi coverage under any circumstances.

If it is supposed to be a free market issue then the communities should have every right to compete with the telcos, since that's what the whole idea of a free market economy is based on.

Re:make up your mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

either wifi is a public infrastructure like roads and rails or its not... if its NOT, then let the moneygrubbing telco's sharpen their knives and move in.
as I road-warrior-drive about, I don't want to be disconnected at every jurisdictional and regulatory boundary such as state lines and city limits.

And how would you like to have no connection at all? Because right now, this is what you will get from the telcos. Besides, once the telcos move in, nothing will prevent you from using their services.

Re:make up your mind!

[mrscorpio]

I hope you mean "regular joe schmoes" when mentioning "communities" and not "the local government", because the free market economy was certainly NOT intended to have the government compete with business on non-essential services to the public...that's wrong on so many levels.

Re:make up your mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that municipalities are making their own WiFi networks is that the the private industry is not moving in.

Re:make up your mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is supposed to be a free market issue then the communities should have every right to compete with the telcos, since that's what the whole idea of a free market economy is based on.

The problem is that any government-run agency is going to be funded at least in part by tax dollars, which allows them to undercut the prices which may be offered by a private competitor. Of course, the prices aren't really lower: the difference is being made up in taxes taken in by the government.

I would definitely support a city (or state, or whoever) setting up a government-managed, but independently funded, company to roll out a wifi infrastructure. In other words, the government tells it what to do ("blanket the city with wifi") and the company determines, with no tax backing, how to do that. It would be fair for the government to start this company out with a sizable low-interest loan, as long as it's clear that (a) that loan has to be repaid; and (b) there will be no more "free money" in the future. Part (b) is especially important, as we are seeing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because of the "implied bailout guarantee:" if the company goes into bankruptcy, its position implies that the government will bail it out, so banks and other lenders will issue loans at incredibly low interest. You can read more about the ongoing problems with Fred and Fan elsewhere if you want more details.

I think this would, in fact, be a really excellent idea, since it would honestly spur competition. Covering an entire city with wifi would be really expensive, and without tax revenues to back it up, the quality of service would be pretty poor: probably not much better than good dialup. So "power users," people who do more than surf the occasional page and send email, would be able to sign up with Verizon (or someone else) for high-speed access. Verizon would be able to cover a smaller area, and because they're offering higher quality they could charge more too. Payoff for Verizon, and while the government's micro-telco will never be very profitable, that's okay; they aren't supposed to be profitable.

But I don't think this will happen, simply because most people seem to fall into two groups: either "Keep the government out of everything" or "Let the government run everything." There's an awfully big excluded middle there, but there aren't many people who seem to realize that.

Re:make up your mind!

[museumpeace]

Its not an area where laws are consistent except to the extent that they have been consistently manipulated by/for the benefit of large companies. Analogies to railroads are apt but dangerous: a century and a half ago, our government knew it needed rails badly to make commerce efficient and mobility of the population easier. IT GAVE AWAY LAND AND GRANTED OR TOLERATED MONOPOLIES just to meet those objectives and the Goulds, ROCKEFELLERs and a host of other robber barons saw their chance. The debate about whether the public good is better served by public investiment or the enlightened greed of private enterpise is nearly as old as our repbulic. We the wireless public who will be ill served or well served by the decision about how the new infrastructure will be financed ought to be screaming at our congressmen right now. The risk/reward model for investiment in this technology is very different from the infrastructure developments that set the precedents for industrial lobbying in utilities. The cost of WiFi set up is low enough that many municipalities have it on their adgendas. Cities with money to burn are practially nonexistent in this country and still many are trying to be the first or best to enable a wirles citizenry. With costs that low and benefits that manifest, it is obscene that we as tax payers or wireless users would sit by and let corporations meter and profit from a service we could easily afford ourselves.
Where the analogy to older utility development may hold is uniformity of service: is local government, perhaps with guidance from standards bodies, or is private industry, jockying as it must for advantage over its internal competition and alternate services, the better way to provide a seamless or the most uniform WiFi service? Rail commerce did not take off until all the rail barons agreed on a rail guage that allowed cars to move from one carriers territory to another. Similarly, I expect WiFi won't be more than a convenience for pockets business travelers until WiFi is uniformly [and securely] supported in urban areas and the travel corridors between them. I want to be getting and sending my VOIP and email CONTINUOUSLY all the way from Boston to NY to DC and on my train ride to work in the morning...Are Verizon and SBC and their ilk going to cooperate on billing so I can do that?

Re:make up your mind!

[Petrox]

Why not? Either as you're roving there's free wife, or there's not. The fact that it's not the same everywhere realistically doesn't burden you at all.

Different and creative approaches to different goods and needs is what a federalist, representative republic is all about.

Re:make up your mind!

[heby]

I don't want to be disconnected at every jurisdictional and regulatory boundary such as state lines and city limits.

it's been a while since i was on a road trip in the US but at least here in Canada, roads don't end at municipal, privincial or even the southern border. apparently municipalities and provinces and even countries are able to communicate with each other about connecting their traffic grids seamlessly, so why should it not work for a communications network?
since telcos are in it for the money, they will cover exclusively areas that make them money - densly populated areas or areas with rich customers. that's why utilities in many places are still public and where they aren't, they are heavily regulated - to provide fair and guaranteed access for all (or most) people. that said, no politician would take the responsibility for spending 95% of the money to reach the last 5% of the population either...

Re:make up your mind!

[KtHM]

Are you trying to say WiFi is a non-essential service? HERETIC!

Re:make up your mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's wrong on so many levels.

No, it's only wrong to paranoid anti-socialism-freaks like yourself. There's a communist under every rock and around every corner! Better get your gun! They're after you!

Re:make up your mind!

[NeMon'ess]

Free wife? No thanks I'll pass.

If only there was free girlfriends somewhere. I'd rove over there quick.

Re:make up your mind!

[NaruVonWilkins]

Excuse me - rails aren't public infrastructure. The local system through Seattle is owned by BNSF.

Re:make up your mind!

[racermd]

This is Slashdot - I can't believe you used the word "non-essential" to describe internet service! How DARE you, sir!

In all seriousness, however, this latest comment has only reaffirmed my faith in government agencies to do the Right Thing (tm). But only enough to be dashed by their next policy decision, whatever that might be. I hate when they get my hopes up just enough to string me along and crush me later...

Re:make up your mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

WHy not? Smaller government jurisdictions certainly compete against private industries, at least when it comes to dealing with governmental properties.

Where do you draw the line?

Remember, cable TV started out initially as a government service in some communities. At least in Bellingham, WA, it was that way. Bellingham was stuck between a rock and a hard place. One locally available TV station. Some could get the Vancouver and Victoria stations. Maybe one or two of the Seattle/Puget Sound TV stations. So the city decided to build its own cable TV system. Of course, it was eventually sold to TCI.

And what is "essential"? If put up for a vote, and the voters approve it, does that count?

What about publicly owned utilities? We're going through that right now in the Portland, OR, area. Should the City of Portland try to buy PGE from Enron, or let Texas Pacific buy it, who will then sell it within 5 years and make ONE HELL OF A PROFIT off of the deal, with no public benefit.

In many rural areas (and most of Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, etc.), there are lots of non-business as well as governmental entities that provide essential public services, because the major service providers will never do so.

The only pure free market economies in the US are garage sales and farmers' markets. eBay et al is probably the next level, and then way on the other side of the spectrum there's the rest of the retail-wholesale, traditional "free" market, which more and more is really just becoming corporate socialism or a Zaibatsu-style economy.

Re:make up your mind!

[Pxtl]

Have you looked at the new technologies coming out? 802.11g is _not_ the cutting edge. Blanketing a city in wifi wouldn't be too hard with the new 802.16 technologies which are designed for running a wireless ISP.

The fact is that some things can actually be done cheaper by a government or a government regulated monopoly. There are fields where competition just leads to wasteful redundancy. Imagine having competing overlaid power distribution systems. Redundant cabling would be horribly wasteful.

In some cases, commercialism complicates things even further. Imagine if people tried to charge for broadcast radio before digital encryption? How the hell would you do that? If something becomes a free government service that is maintained by tax dollars, then all of the infrastructure needed for payment, unauthorised access, most advertising, and fighting competition goes away.

The problem is this attitude that seems to occur on both sides of the spectrum - that waste is good, as long as the economy can bare it, because it encourages job growth. I think that's stupid - waste is waste, the money not spent on waste can instead go into a more productive section of the economy, and the city will be stronger and more successful for it.

While this is a principle usually part of communism, the problem is that communism also fails to account for the sloth and inefficiency inherent in government beaurocracy. The trick is to find the line where a single monopoly (government or otherwise) can so massively outperform a redundant marketplace that it compensates for the inefficiency inherent in government or monopolistic companies. Most municipal systems that involve cabling and pipes are such systems.

(I was tempted to write an example about how Canadians spend less on health-care per capita and have a longer average lifespan, but that would be flamebait).

Re:make up your mind!

[grozzie2]

A community can mean a lot of things, but in this case, it happens to mean a group of like minded people, that choose to live within the same jurasdiction for the purposes of property taxation. They do normally expect to recieve some level of services in return for that property tax. In some areas, it consists mainly of water and sewer service. In other areas, it may also include police services. If that group of people choose to include wifi within the service set they deploy, who are you to say they cant?

The real question i have regarding this, what ever happened to the 'free country' in all the propoganda ? Aren't folks free to make thier own choices about such things in the usa, or is that all just cheap talk for the propoganda machines ?

Re:make up your mind!

[jbolden]

because the free market economy was certainly NOT intended to have the government compete with business on non-essential services to the public...that's wrong on so many levels.

I suggest you learn some economic history. Some of the very first corporations were to fund the building of toll bridges which competed directly with the roads that were government funded.

Re:make up your mind!

[mrscorpio]

You people are missing the point. Yes, I am a libertarian, however I never discussed the advantages or disadvantages of a free market economy. All I was saying is that in one, government does not compete with private industry.

Yeah

[blobzorz]

i hate the FCC, just let me be me... I forgot the rest of the words --- http://onticfusion.sytes.net/

Yes

[interstellar_donkey]

I love reading about this; this idea that the airwaves ultimatly belong to the public. The idea that the public can't use their own airwaves because a company wants to make money off of it just chaps my hide.

Perhaps men like this will bring the FCC towards the direction that it needs to be heading. Who knows... some day all of the public airwaves will actually be used to benifit the public.

Re:Yes

[cybrthng]

VOTE.

Simple as that. VOTE. Not because of looks, appearences or if someone has a twang or not, but vote because someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way.

Executive powers decide who leads the FCC, but you can put that executive in.

Re:Yes

[DoraLives]

The idea that the public can't use their own airwaves because a company wants to make money off of it just chaps my hide.

Concur.

But there's hope. We're now able to get all our weather data directly from the NWS office of our choosing, as opposed to having to get it from some bogus subscription service that just regurgitates our own data that we had already bought and paid for, back at us.

Maybe things will shake out alright with wireless?

Re:Yes

[Zorilla]

So which one do we vote for - the Republican one who will appoint an FCC leader who wishes to fine broadcasters based on morality or the Democratic one who will apoint one who wishes to turn TV into a cheap nanny?

Re:Yes

[Monkelectric]

That is absolutely the lamest dig at the democrats Ive ever heard in my life.

Re:Yes

[interstellar_donkey]

Hint: Both parties are full of incompitant corporate stooges.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:Yes

[jbolden]

someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way

And you see what candidate running for office who fulfills that criteria. Our last choice was between Mr. Fascist and Mr. Spineless. The Red State Americans have decided to punish the Wall Street elite by voting Republican. The Rockefeller Republicans now run the Democratic party.

Voting ain't gonna do it.

Re:Yes

[hyfe]

but vote because someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way.

Sounds cool, know of any parties that supports this?

I figured it out!

[SoulMaster]

Clearly there are alternate-universe versions of Copps and Powell running around doing good for the country!

Has anyone checked them for goatees?

Re:I figured it out!

[Ravenrage]

i just wish there was an "evil" gwb

Re:I figured it out!

[a whoabot]

You should make that into a cartoon, you know an "evil" Magus Adam Warlock-style GWB splits off from him and they become arch-enemies. Students would eat it up, you'd be rich.

Today in Bizarro Land

[Anonymous Coward]

We're happy Microsoft won a court motion. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/2016235.shtml ?tid=109&tid=123

Justice is served in the American court system. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/0531204.shtml ?tid=155&tid=123

Half of Slashdot is mad at Apple. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/04/138234.sh tml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=3

The FCC is our friend. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/1828200.shtml ?tid=153&tid=187&tid=123

What happened to predictability?

Re:Today in Bizarro Land

[garcia]

Half of Slashdot is mad at Apple. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/04/138234.sh tml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=3

Oh we shouldn't be mad at Apple. They are being businessmen even if they are being assholes. I don't expect anything less. Who I am pissed at is the fucking judge who decided that he can determine who and who isn't a journalist.

Sorry but journalists shouldn't be required to work for a "commercial entity" in order to be considered one. That only gives protections to the employees of media conglomorates who are known to be influenced by threats on their jobs...

The leakers broke the dumb law that was passed by lawmakers that had big IT business in their pockets not the journalists.

Re:Today in Bizarro Land

[jd]

Well, according to the BBC, today (4th March) is the day Charlie Chaplin got knighted. This is clearly Slashdot's way of commemorating it.

Re:Today in Bizarro Land

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still predictable, you insensitive clod!!

Re:Today in Bizarro Land

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Slashdot predicts YOU!

(Was that predictable enough?)

Re:Today in Bizarro Land

[Eslyjah]

Uh, even "real" journalists can be subpoenaed and required to divulge sources. If they refuse, it's contempt of court. Journalists aren't "special" in any legal sense.

Re:Today in Bizarro Land

[CrimsonAvenger]

Depends. Shield Laws exist in some states which allow journalists to avoid revealing sources (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the wording of the law in question). California, or instance, has a very strong shield law, last I looked.

He does a lot..

[cybrthng]

Search google for him:

http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+copps&start=0 &s tart=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org. mozilla:en-US:official

Against Big media, looks out for the indi media and is looking to actually SET RULES instead of "notions" of what is wrong.

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[alw53]

Amen, once the government gets involved they will drive all the private operators out of business.
Just like they did the subways in New York, which were started by people brave enough to risk their own money rather than everyone else's.

The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC is provided certain authority to exercise controls over broadcast and telecommunications media.

Where did the FCC derive such authority? Please trace this lineage from the constitution as I haven't read it.

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[erick99]

From congress.

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[erick99]

More specifically, Congress created the FCC in 1934 (from the Radio Act of 1927) and the FCC derives whatever authority it has from congress. The FCC has been known to, at least according to some in congress, overstep their authority. You won't find every agency in the Constitution but you will find the means to create an agency and bestow authority upon that agency.

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[Qzukk]

Congress created them based on interstate commerce clause. One of the few uses of the clause that actually makes sense. Can you imagine what the US would be like if you couldn't operate a radio you bought in Missouri in Kansas because they use different base frequencies? Or if you were in Kansas City and you'd have to have two radios in your car for the drive across the border from KCMO to KCKS because Kansas ruled that it was illegal to receive broadcasts from Missouri while in Kansas? (hey, just like Canada and US satellite TV!) Or if Kansas ruled that interference with their radio waves was illegal and started taking Missouri stations to court for broadcasting on channels that interfered with their uses of the frequency?

Even on the subject of regulating what appears on those frequencies is within this scope. If Kansas rules against any nudity, foul language, or unwed mothers are to appear on TV, and Missouri allows a broadcast Playboy channel, whose job is it to build the lead wall between the two in order to keep the smut out of Kansas?

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can you imagine what the US would be like if you couldn't operate a radio you bought in Missouri in Kansas because they use different base frequencies?"

Yeah kind of like how they had to step in on the private sector with that VHS vs betamax thing... Oh wait the private sectore did eventually work that out. Kind of funny how a standard did work out without regulation... Broadcasting is still a business and while I do agree that there is some regulation needed, the FCC goes over and above constantly.

As far as the lead wall is concerned, if the people in Kansas are so inept that they are not capable of changing the chanel or just plain not watching what they dont want to watch, then it would be up to them to put up the lead wall. At that point if I lived in Missouri I would probably sue them for the cost of putting up a protective barrier against the lead, blame them for poisoning the water ways with the lead etc. etc.

What the FCC seems to do primarily (at least what hits the media) now is regulate morality and if they enter this fight about municipal WiFi it is just another attempt to control local government.

I fail to see the benefit to the people if they regulate this. I do see a benefit to big business - such as SBC or the cable companies. Of course we also know that municipalities are going to contract this out, so somebody is in for a sweet government contract if they bid wisely on this...

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[sumdumass]

The FCC already does regulate this. They arte in charge of even the most minor (by todays standard)comunications like the telephone.

The problem here is that If a local government venture into this area, they will in efect have a legal monopoly as well as the ability to make all the rules people need to play by. Another issue is were large companies own judges and stop municipalities from participating in the first place.

Now my biggest grip with this would be "why should my tax dollars go to something that isn't neccesary and i will likley not ever participate in?" There should be some oversight outside the "local mophia/government" that would most likley be doing this to enrich someone close to them.

The FCC does more then stop inmoral content from being displayed on television. They stop the guy down the street form placing a 200 watt amp on a cb radio that bleads over any other signals you might have the need to reach (like television and radio) they also protect certain frequecies so you as a consumer could use them. I bet you would be pretty pissed and begging them to do somethign if you wireless router all the sudden didn't work because I set up a low power radio station right next door and didn't go thru the proper channels to get it aproved or to protect existing comunications. You may not agree with recent rulings but i bet you take advantage of most others without thinking about it. It would realy suck if you couldn't even get a cable broadcast channel because i set up a super strong relay down the street that saturated all the above groung cables in the area with my becon.

I think you, as well as most others that are complaining about this just don't unnderstand the role the fcc plays or has played in the past. It is obvious that without them, The landscape would be entirly different. You wouldn't have half the stuff availible that you do today and developement of the technoligy we are seing to day wouldn't even be possible.

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[funk_doc]

Granted the federal government has no authority in deciding whether municipalities can socialize internet access, I'm surprised that anyone here at /. would want municipal WiFi, other than the obvious Free Lunch. Lets take a look at some of the problems that will arise:

Static IP and Port Forwarding. I'm sure that many of you forward ports through your router/firewall for certain applications (http, ftp...). I can guarantee that the municipality will not support this feature, and it would be impossible to get a static ip. Once the municipality monopolizes the market, there will be no competition from the private sector. You can't compete with free. While private companies in other areas offer new features, lower price and more bandwidth (they have to compete, remember) you will be stuck paying high prices (taxes) for a slow connection. While the idea of other people who don't use the internet paying for your BitTorrent downloads seems like a great idea, it will cost you more in the long run.

Censorship. Once this municipality has the power to decide what you can and can't view on the internet, do you really think that it would never be abused. Some religious group will donate large amounts of money to a campaign, and the politician will have to repay that group with censorship legislation.

Internet access may seem high right now, and it is. Competition is real, prices have and will continue to go down as features are being added. My Comcast connection used to cost $59/mo, now I have more bandwidth and it's only $20/mo. Government is never as efficient as the private sector, it will cost everyone much more to let the government supply WiFi rather than a private company. Also, when was the last time you heard of a government program living up to it's promise? Do you think that this would be any different?

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[Qzukk]

Yeah kind of like how they had to step in on the private sector with that VHS vs betamax thing

Not even remotely the same thing. Using betamax didn't cause anyone's heart monitors to fail or interfere with any plane guidance towers. Given that its proven that companies don't give a shit about what happens to everyone else, without regulation they would build cheap unshielded devices that would be capable of pumping out massive amounts of interference.

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[falconwolf]

The FCC is provided certain authority to exercise controls over broadcast and telecommunications media.

Where did the FCC derive such authority? Please trace this lineage from the constitution as I haven't read it.

Article I. - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

That is where some say the constitution gives the federal government the power over radio waves. It seems to me though that the FCC abridges the First Amendment Freedom of Speech.

Falcon

Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ...

[falconwolf]

You won't find every agency in the Constitution but you will find the means to create an agency and bestow authority upon that agency.

Yeah, you can find the means if you totally ignore the original intent of the Constitution of the USA. Government was supposed to be small and with limited powers.

Falcon

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[ThisIsFred]

Just in case anyone was wondering, this wasn't me posting as AC (and trying to stir up trouble again). ;o)

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'd have a problem with it, if it was the NATIONAL government implementing Wi-Fi, but it's local municipalities that are doing it.

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Privatization is not by its nature "better and cheaper"; it is only "better and cheaper" if it actually is. If it is in comparison to the municipal government, that government will eventually shift toward privatization- if it then becomes worse and more expensive, that government will reclaim it and collectivize private suppliers. This is a matter for policy decision, not a damned law one way or the other. Aside, government provision, assuming adequate tax funds and appropriate use, should stimulate its economy and increase the wealth of its populace equal to or over the former levels.

Unlicensed

[grozzie2]

The fcc should have only one comment to this whole issue. 802.11 is unlicensed. As long as the equipment in use falls within the emissioins requirements of unlicensed, what part of the word 'unlicensed' do the rest of the levels of government not understand. They also need to remind the rest of the various levels of government, wifi is a service based on radio transmissions. FCC rulings trump all other levels of government in this area.

Re:Unlicensed

[Anonymous Coward]

wifi is a service based on radio transmissions. FCC rulings trump all other levels of government in this area.

Yes, until it hits a wire and falls victim to other types of regulations.

OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[ThisIsFred]

Why don't they require something useful, like a boob-cast flag? Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[MarkRose]

Better yet, someone should implement a boob-bit for TCP/IP. That way, I could sniff only the network packets I really want.

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why don't they require something useful, like a boob-cast flag?
Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.

They already did, it is called the v-chip -- almost all tv's manufactured since 2000 have a v-chip, almost all programming contains v-chip readable flags. The v-chip flag isn't applied to news or live sports, so you would not have automatically grabbed Janet's teat, but otherwise just about every broadcast program is flagged.

But of course, having a technical solution to this "indecency" problem is no solution at all, the real goal of the people behind the "decency" brouhaha is to control the content of the airwaves. The v-chip gives control to the owner of the TV, not the owners of the tv broadcasters. So, we'll be sure to pass more laws restricting contaact and pretend that we are really legislating decency and morality.

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[A beautiful mind]

Watch out for false positives though. (not if i would have anything against shemales, i just don't wanna SEE them naked)

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[B3ryllium]

You sniff boobies.

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[MarkRose]

Damn right ;)

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[parliboy]

Then you'd only get C-SPAN. Big bunch of boobs on that channel...

Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused

[toadlife]

good bit: 0x0
evil bit: 0x1
boob bit: (.)x(.)

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[jay-be-em]

There's a huge difference between the federal government spying on its citizens and a local municipality making decisions about how to treat wifi net access.

Personally I'm often anti-gov't, but I'm quite pro-gov't when the gov't is decentralized and decisions are made at the local level.

He does speak about it...

[cybrthng]

Look him up on google, he says he wants to RULE on indecency. Right now the rules are so vague hey have no way to set precedence and he wants to do just that.

I say its about time people work on rules that are enforceable and not just something on a whim..

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[DuckofDeath87]

You know, IMHO, most slashdoters don't really want there to be less government. I think that most of us here accually just hate big companies, and just do not like it when the government sides with companies on anything, which is the norm.

Or maybe it is just that comapanies are above the government on the /. hate scale.

Hell just froze over

[Nonillion]

It's amazing when the FCC actually gets something, now if we can get them to reconsider the spectrum polluting BPL decision and that pesky broadcast flag.

Another view.

[cwsulliv]

Well sure, it'd be nice to have "free" wireless access (at the taxpayers' expense). But does anyone doubt that in many (if not most) localities the access will be filtered down to the PG-13 level, to "protect the children". And how many commercial ISPs will survive as an alternative in the face of this "free" competition?

Thanks but no thanks - I'd rather pay and have an unfiltered feed.

Re:Another view.

[Rude Turnip]

It costs money to filter. It would be cheaper to offer filtering software to the few prudes who would want it.

Re:Another view.

[NaruVonWilkins]

Library feeds aren't filtered in *my* city. Perhaps you should move here.

Re:Another view.

[g0hare]

I'm capable of choosing which one of my neighbors' wireless signals I piggyback on. You should be able to easily get the "pay" channel if you don't like free PG-13.

Re:Another view.

[cwsulliv]

Assuming there is still a "pay channel" left which hasn't folded.

Re:Another view.

[cwsulliv]

Your city is either outside the USA or your library has chosen to forgo any Federal funding.

Re:Another view.

[cwsulliv]

Nah. The prude view is that everyone has to be filtered - god forbid their child should visit an unfiltered friend and be exposed to the likes of, say, Slashdot. :-)

Re:Another view.

[NaruVonWilkins]

Ding! behind door number two. We have a trust fund, I believe.

damm!

[TheHawke]

The quarter fell edge on today!

Usually, when the FCC passes jugement, it's usually for SIGs (special interest groups) that are sponsored by either big bells, or politicos.

But today, Vonage got the better of a baby bell, and now THIS! ^.^

I'm right proud of our political system.. It maybe creaky and downright questionable at times, but when it does work, DAMM, nice things do happen!

Re:damm!

[MauMan]

Don't worry by Monday they'll say something that will take the edge off of your happiness. Sorry for being the 'reaper.

Have a nice weekend!

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It has a lot to do with the type of government.

Local governments should and do have more freedom than the federal government in many regards simply because they are less able to repress their people.

Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cynicism is truly mighty. :)

It's an old story.

[Futurepower(R)]

People who make money doing things the old way don't want anyone doing things a new way.

Those who made money with horses did not want cars to be introduced.

Decades ago, the painter's unions tried to get the newly introduced paint rollers ruled illegal. They were afraid people would paint their own houses.

The big companies use VOIP to move your long distance calls around. They want private VOIP to be outlawed so they can make a huge profit doing the same thing themselves.

Aggregating a huge number of users with Municipal WiFi is far more efficient than having each person have a separate account with an ISP. The ISPs want Municipal and private WiFi to be made illegal so they can make a huge profit doing same thing themselves.

It's "Please, please, please corrupt the government so that I can make easy money."

Re:It's an old story.

[grozzie2]

If the telecoms can do it more efficiently, let them. That's not a good reason to prevent anybody else from doing it. There's plenty of market for everybody, let them duke it out in the free market, and may the best service win.

If the telecoms are really scared of a muni wifi deployment, it's because they wont be offering a service of any appreciably better value. If they were, they wouldn't be worried about the muni wifi hurting thier business.

The fact that the telecoms are trying to prevent it, is essentially proof that the telecoms are not planning to implement anything signficantly better.

Re:It's an old story.

[ShieldW0lf]

Telcoms will be able to do wireless far more efficiently. That's what these people understand. The fact that govts are even considering muni WiFi just shows how inefficient govt is when WiMax is right around the corner. These local govts. wouldn't understand a link budget if it punched them in the face.

If you're right, the municipalities can hire them to do the work for them. If the municipalities are able to do it more effectively on their own than by hiring a telco, that telco doesn't deserve to be in business.

You think making it illegal for your customers to do it themselves so they'll continue to hire you to do it is the answer?

!!!WOW

[Tufriast]

I don't watch TV , so I could care less about the broadcast flag, as I can build a PC to do that job. I also expect a variety of PVR broadcast flag bypassing machines to be available sometime soon. I do however care about the freedom of the web. I am glad someone upstairs isn't thinking with greed on their mind. It's about time they got some balls!

Re:!!!WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you can care less, then by all means do so. And once you're doing so, it will be appropriate to claim you "couldn't care less."

Please remember proper terminology for the future. It's good for you.

Relatively Happy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does feel nice when these things happen, doesn't it. But the fact that it is such a rare and precious good feeling should tell you something.

We tell ourselves all the time that we have a country with a system that works better than some others. But heck, stuff goes right *sometimes* in North Korea too! So why do I feel so happy about an incident where the "justice" system got something right?

Realistic self-image is a nice concept, if it weren't so unpatriotic.

Bow to your new wireless overlords

[geekee]

"Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace...a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making."

The point of a marketplace is that it provides freedom to choose products and services you want. The Soviet Union was good at showing a govt. controlled economy was not a successful venture. Here is another such example. WiFi is a shitty solution for community wireless networks. WiMAX will be out soon, and is a far better solution for this problem. These Muni WiFi projects are ill conceived and expensive. I know this, but if I'm not in the majority in my community, I'm stuck paying for it. This is not freedom, but tyranny of the majority. I'd rather people voted with their dollars in a marketplace as to what kinds of wireless services they want.

Re:Bow to your new wireless overlords

[nmos]

WiMAX will be out soon, and is a far better solution for this problem.

In case you havn't noticed the pattern yet there's ALLWAYS something better just around the corner. Then it comes out and is expensive, unreliable, and often a bit of a disappointment performance wise. Then the tech. matures and comes down in price but by the there's something even better just around the corner. Lather, rinse, repeat.

These Muni WiFi projects are ill conceived and expensive. I know this, but if I'm not in the majority in my community, I'm stuck paying for it.

Yeah, that's how democracy works. If you really think you're smarter than everyone else maybe you should run for office?

Re:Bow to your new wireless overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, just maybe, I shouldn't be forced to pay for something I don't want just because the majority deems that I should.

Note: try reading the end of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution to see the clear uncostitutionality of this.

Re:Bow to your new wireless overlords

[revscat]

The point of a marketplace is that it provides freedom to choose products and services you want.

The marketplace works very well in some cases when left alone, in others the public benefits more when government provides an impetus. I see nothing wrong with this, nor do I feel a degree of loyalty to the "free market" over and above my own and my community's interest. If this works well for the most people, then so be it.

Re:Bow to your new wireless overlords

[jbolden]

For many services the cost of billing for the service can outweigh the cost of providing the service. Roads are an example of this. WiFi another. For about $1 person/month a community can provide universal internet providing it makes no attempt to bill for universal internet.

Re:Bow to your new wireless overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

WiMAX is a good backhaul system but not really designed to be used for local area communications.

The planned design for WiMAX. have a single WiMAX card in your 802.11a/b/g base station. no having a WiMAX card in every laptop. Also, the WiMAX will be licensed not unlicensed spectrum.

All I can say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bully pulpit mode on:

It will be a cold day in hell when I allow my tax dollars go to pay for some cheapskate to DL porn for free.

The communist manifesto is alive and well on /.! It's the governments job to do everything for us! There are about a thousand REAL issues that could use any extra municipality money LONG before providing free porn.

Get your damn priorities straight you bunch of ivory tower hippies!

Bully Pulpit mode Off:

But you know, the bully does make some sense. We have come a long way from the government providing our comminications and our fuel, I'm not sure why we would start going backwards on this issue.

Especially an issue that is far down on the radar of most people. I mean, why does the government not provide free TV? Free Phone? Free Electricity or Gas? Well free in that our tax rate will of course go up to pay for it all. But shouldn;t everything be free and equally divided among everyone?!?!? Whoops, were back to communism again, I'm sorry...

Re:All I can say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactely my opinion. Muni's should concentrate on what they have been empowered to do by us.

Re:All I can say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be a cold day in hell when I allow my tax dollars go to pay for some cheapskate to DL porn for free.

The communist manifesto is alive and well on /.! It's the governments job to do everything for us! There are about a thousand REAL issues that could use any extra municipality money LONG before providing free porn.

But your tax dollars can subsidize large corporations and the military-industrial complex.
Yes, we need the F-22.. no telling when those bastards flying Mig-21's are going to invade.

Or maybe we just piss off Europe enough that they start overflights with the Eurofighter.

And don't even get me started on the NON-FUNCTIONING ABM system.

Meanwhile, we can't fund schools and we can't seem to provide healthcare... which in most modern countries that have a democratic form of government are regarded as a human rights.

You can bitch.. and you can whine.. but soon the baby-boomers will figure out that they're about to be tossed out onto the street without a pot to piss in when they ATTEMPT to retire. And guess what stud: they vote! Say hello to your new socialist overlords.

Mark my words.. by 2012 it will happen in a big way.

Don't care if he's a Dem or Repub...

[rdean400]

We need more guys with this mindset in Washington.

Government must give proper change a push.

[Futurepower(R)]

I agree that telecoms can do WiFi more efficiently. But they won't unless the government mandates it. Muni wireless is a way to get started. Eventually, there will be WiFi everywhere, and we will use VOIP for our cell phones. The cell phone towers will become WiFi towers.

Along the way, there will be less profit for some people, who will fight change.

Limited my ass

[KtHM]

It's only limited the way they've got it set up. There's no reason that, with today's technology, we couldn't split it up a hundred times more than it is. But then everyone could get a cheap radio station, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

Re:Limited my ass

[hastings14]

It's only limited the way they've got it set up. There's no reason that, with today's technology, we couldn't split it up a hundred times more than it is. But then everyone could get a cheap radio station, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

no reason? mmhh... technologically, there's no reason, but politically and socially many good reasons.

Example: My grandmother, who is 92 and still going strong, but her eyesight isn't what it used to be. So she listens to the radio. This is a woman who has only the vaguest concept of what digital is, and if you tried to change the dial on her - well, bad things.

Note: One thing she does know how to do is vote. And she and her peers vote in far, far, greater number than my generation, who are too busy reading here and listening to MP3s or podcasting or video games or whatever we feel like. Any politician who would seriously suggest changing the current radio system would have to go through my grandmother first, and that's just not likely to happen.

Having said that, the FCC and "radio industry" is moving to digital radio (aka HD Radio) and it will at least create some more stations for those with digital receivers while at the same time leaving the old analog stations the way they are. This is the Ibiquity thing.

The old system took a few generations to build up, and it will take at least a few generations to break down. At some point, the FCC probably will become unnecessary, but not yet.

In the meantime, there's always Satellite Radio and Podcasting....

When municipal networks attack....

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this inane fascination with Municipal Wifi? These people can barely run their own Win32 networks and now you're screaming for them to deliver Wifi services? How many places to the right would you like them to the move the decimal place of your current tax liability so you can surf pr0n on state of the art 49Mhz systems? You mean it's bad that we plugged in this D-Link AP to our 911 segment? Would someone please post a M$/Linux TCO article so we can return to normal?

Re:When municipal networks attack....

[NaruVonWilkins]

Actually, the cost to consumer of a municipal broadband system is expected to be quite a bit lower than the cost of a private system - the private groups have been convicted, more than once, of price fixing, and they continue to do so.

Re:When municipal networks attack....

[Anonymous Coward]

While I appreciate your distrust of the evil price-fixing monoliths. "Expected to be lower" translates into the SLA of your average library or free coffee shop Wifi. When it works, it works and when it doesn't too bad. Expecting your average municipal government to embrace the tenants of service-reliability, security, and scalability would presume a quantum leap in the evolution of the municipal employee. So where does that leave you? A deployed Wifi network that might be up or might be down but is always consuming tax dollars.

Re:When municipal networks attack....

[DiscoOnTheSide]

you're assuming the typical "schlub" municipal employee is going to be doing this stuff. I've yet to see a municipality that's done this and didnt have a small group of IT specialists running the show, answering to whoever. A friend of mine is actually currently setting up such a network, and the most dificult thing seems to be getting Verizon to stop playing the "shell game" with their T1s

Re:When municipal networks attack....

[NaruVonWilkins]

Try having a look at the already deployed municipal networks around the US, and compare. You can answer your own question.

OFFTOPIC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderate parent as such.

Tax dollars for free wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. Wifi from a muni is just bad spending of tax payers money. My city had better spend more money on roads than spend my tax dollars on something that most people use to surf porn on.

Just to start a little discussion...

[Marran Gray]

As a fun little thought exercise, think about municipal wireless and liability. For that matter, think about any public wireless and liability. We can probably dispose with reasonable expectation of privacy, since it's an open network, but what about spoofing? What if someone hijacks the municipal net and does bad things to the users? What if someone (locally) takes down the municipal net and (locally) sets up a phony replacement?

Now, think about the differences between a network maintained by the government and one maintained by a private interest. Discuss.

Re:Just to start a little discussion...

[zangdesign]

We don't need to be planning for "if", we need to be planning for "when" it happens. It is a guarantee, along with death and taxes, that some twit will always try to crack a system, no matter how benevolent the purpose of the system is.

6 MONTHS

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd give him 6 months before the bloody cogs of DC politics churn him into pulp...

how DARE he go against the empire?

Michael Copps is absolutely right

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Copps brings it straight to the point. I am very happy to see that we have someone at the FCC who actually understands the situation regarding WiFi community networks and speaks out about it. Michael Copps is doing an excellent job. Lets all write him and tell him to keep up his good work in educating people about the current situation: fccinfo@fcc.gov

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"if it is, the "state" in its more general sense has a power and an obligation to see that this data road of the radio frequencies [...]
if its NOT, then let the moneygrubbing telco's sharpen their knives and move in. "

This is a false choice.

There are public roads, and there are private roads. Public roads are "free" for everyone to use them. Private roads require a toll to be used.

Why couldn't WiFi follow the same model?

public wi-fi

[argontechnologies]

As an addendum, show me ONE thing the government does better than when it was private... Just one. Because you take money out of someone elses pocket to put in in John Q. jPublic's pocket is not an improvement..... Just a theft.

Re: public wi-fi

[spitzak]

Roads
Air traffic control
Water
Sewage
Police
Fire department
Tax collection
Border patrol
Defense
War

Re: public wi-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Roads: I've seen some pretty shitty roads, not to mention perpetual construction on many roads in southern California

Air traffic control: I'm sure if left alone, the airlines would get together and provide some sort of communication so their planes don't crash into each other...just maybe.

water: the water in my town makes me physically sick, I have to buy it from safeway

Police: yeah, damn potheads, they should all be locked up

Tax collection/war: no shit gov't does these better, they have an incentive to

Border patrol: that's why Arizona citizens are making militias to patrol those walking into their state...ah...

defense: um, how has the US gov't defended it's citizens in the past 50 years? Oh that's right, by intervening in other sovereign countries, and waging undeclared wars...now I understand.

So that leaves sewage and fire departments, but I've read some free market solutions to fire departments(kind of like insurance, where if you don't have it, they let your house burn to the gound if everyones safe). So Sewage. Good job, you gave one instance of gov't maybe doing things better than free markets.

Re: public wi-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have heard the Bells ringing,but,unfortunately don't know where the fuck there are hanging!!

Re: public wi-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Roads: I've seen some pretty awful private roads.

Air traffic control: I'm sure the airlines won't let something like greed get in the way of the greater good... right?

Water: Why should everyone have to pay more so that a few hypochondriacs can have ultra-purified water?

Police: The potheads are being locked up because it's the law. Would privitizing the police magically change the laws?

Border patrol: Sorry, the corporations are not going to help you out on this one.

defense: Let's see... have any companies ever exploited an oppressed people, thereby generating murderous hatred toward Americans? Oh yeah...

I've read some free market solutions to fire departments(kind of like insurance, where if you don't have it, they let your house burn to the gound if everyones safe).

So if you buy into this system and your house burns to the ground, then you switch providers and try again? No thanks, I'd rather have my house still standing.

marketplace has less oppression than democracy

[toiletmonster]

Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace...a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions.

I hear this all the time from big government fans and communists. The fact is, democracy sucks. The difference between the marketplace and a democracy is, in a marketplace everyone gets to make their own personal decision about what they want while in a democracy the majority impose their will on the minority. For example. Say a group of 10 people are going to vote on an issue. 6 people vote for it and 4 against. This means 6 people get to tell the other 4 what to do. In a marketplace, all 10 people decide what they want. Which one is more free?

Democracy is not as great as advertised. Real freedom is found at the individual level in the marketplace.

Re:marketplace has less oppression than democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This presumes that all 10 people have the means to execute their 'individual choice'. In reality, many times the upper class chooses to suppress the lower class's choice. Straight up free-market think just doesn't work when players start changing the rules for others.

Re:marketplace has less oppression than democracy

[toiletmonster]

I think you are talking about market anarchy where criminals can impose their will on others. When people say "free" market, they mean free in the same way the founding fathers meant it: you are free to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the freedoms of others. This requires a strong and fair justice system which means a strong federal government.

I support having a federal government to keep markets free. And as much as i dislike democracy, I can't think of a better way to run a government. However, democracy always oppresses the minority view and so we should avoid it as much as possible. Sometimes thats not possible. But lets stick to the free market as much as we can.

Re:marketplace has less oppression than democracy

[phuturephunk]

You're not taking monopolies into account. In fact, your entire argument is assinine.

If 8 out of 10 people patronize a certain company, product, player in the industry..whatever..then its a good assumption that the remaining two will eventually, because of monopolistic conditions, patronize what the other 8 are as well.

Look at consumer OS market. Microsoft controls what, like 90 percent of the marketplace... leaving a fraction of a percent for *nix derivatives. In that kind of marketplace, MS is able to bully OEMS and other firms in the market into leaning towards, and strongly pimping their shit under implied threat, thereby forcing the majority of users in the market to use Microsoft stuff.

Do consumers in the market have the freedom to choose? To a limited extent, yes..and that limitation is IMPOSED by the controlling interest in the marketplace..because as we all know, business isn't interested in fairness or charity.

Democracy is a type of government. Capitalism is an economic system. Don't mix up the two.

Fantastic Idea!

[toadlife]

Unlike the evil bit, the internet community might actually find a use for this one.

Re:Fantastic Idea!

[FxChiP]

Off-topic, but that RFC is totally retarded. Was it written as a joke?

Re:Fantastic Idea!

[toadlife]

Yeah. It was released on April 1st.

the problem with democracy

[toiletmonster]

People always try to justify big government by saying thats it democracy and the people voted for it.

The fact is, democracy sucks. The difference between the marketplace and a democracy is, in a marketplace everyone gets to make their own personal decision about what they want while in a democracy the majority impose their will on the minority. For example. Say a group of 10 people are going to vote on an issue. 6 people vote for it and 4 against. This means 6 people get to tell the other 4 what to do. In a marketplace, all 10 people decide what they want. Which one is more free?

Democracy is not as great as advertised. Real freedom is found at the individual level in the marketplace.

Re:the problem with democracy

[Principal Skinner]

We suffer the tyranny of the majority in the marketplace, too. I wish it were painless to just go out and buy a good, cheap computer where every single component worked under Linux. I wish I weren't expected to choose between MS Word and plain ASCII text for my resume format. I wish I could go to a nearby coffee shop that played classical music all the time. I wish it were easy to find a home in walking distance of a school, town center w/ movie theater, etc., but the marketplace has not seen fit to create these things. Other people's choices constantly limit what is available to me.

Government occasionally acts to make sure that the minority are not limited in their freedom, and have choices. This is why, for example, it costs 37 (cent) to send a letter anywhere in the U.S., regardless of how much more it actually costs to get the letter to a remote area. The policy of the U.S. Postal Service, as a government service, is to provide equal service to all Americans. The marketplace, on the other hand, may choose not to go to those areas at all! Where's the choice for the people who live in those areas?

I don't disagree with your point about democracy, however. I definitely didn't vote for tax cuts, war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, but I'm stuck with them because the majority, indirectly and perhaps after-the-fact, did.

Commodity or Utility

[0x0000]

Whereas bandwidth and internet access should be utilitarian - that is: like potable water, access to the global information networks should be something that is a) trivially accessible in a civilized society, and b) raises the quality of life for everyone who has access to it.

The telco approach is to retain access to the internet - and wifi acccess in particular - as a commodity.

It's about time somebody at the FCC started doing their job. It'll be interesting to see how successful this particular David is at taking on the Goliath of the combined Bells, cable companies, ISPs, and (probably) the entertainment industry (guessing that e.g. Time-Warner et al is backing or will be backing the telcos in this particular power grab).

ever heard of shareholders voting?

[Cryofan]

I have heard rumors that shareholders can vote. Guess what? I have also heard rumors that sometimes some shareholders don't get what they want!

so....

[toiletmonster]

so.... whats your point?

hmm

[toiletmonster]

maybe you are trying to say that the stock market is really just a democracy and so therefore the free market is a democracy. but i think you are very mistaken if you think most of the market transactions that take place in the world involve the stock market. the stock market is just a small part of the commerce that happens around the world. alos, shareholders are able to move their money into different companies. this is much different from voters in a government democracy who will find it very difficult to change countries.

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[istewart]

Or the line is blurred between state and corporate power.

Personally, I agree with the guy above who likes decentralization. I think if you paid closer attention, you would find a large number of libertarians and perhaps outright anarchists. They just don't seem that way because they believe that some corporations abuse state power.

Ummmm, yey!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> They can make their own decisions. They don't
> need the Bells. They don't need the
> Administration, and they don't need me telling
> them what kind of decision they should be making

As long as the munincipalities don't try to outlaw the Bells, etc. from providing, either.

Like they did with cable -- one cable company only, with kickbacks, poor service, no competition. Thanks, government!

You forget

[beakburke]

It's going to cost a whole lost more than a dollar per person-month to fund this thing. Especially if price isn't correlated to bandwidth usage and people get used to a fast connection. It's a classic illustration of the "split-the-check" problem. It's also part of the reason that routine healthcare is so expensive in the US.

Re:You forget

[jbolden]

Why do you think its going to cost a lot? How is this different than companies which provide high levels of bandwidth for each employee?

Let's consider the situation...

[ebrandsberg]

City turns on city-wide wireless. Everybody with cable modems and dsl say "great, I'll cancel my service now". Slowly, that 11Mb/s (ideal) connection you connected to as the first one to use it in your neighborhood gets shared with 100 other people. Result? Speeds similar to dialup IF everything works right. Now tie in bittorrent bandwidth, and everything goes to the shitter. The only way wireless networks to work well is for there to be few enough users so they don't get congested in a given area. Once free service comes online, there will be so much congestion, nobody will WANT to be on it, and it disrupted the ability for other companies to make money on reliable services (as much as they are).

Someone will come back and point out you can get more than 11 Mb/s out of this stuff, let's assume 54Mb/s, or even 100Mb/s. In the end it will still reach saturation, everybody will have to be throttled at some low amount of bandwidth to keep things fair, and service overall will be crap. I can't even keep a 802.11B connection stable from across a room (nothing in between) due to interference, much less across a city block. Leave this stuff to the pros to figure out a reliable way to deliver internet.

Re:Let's consider the situation...

[benzapp]

Leave this stuff to the pros to figure out a reliable way to deliver internet.

Why do you assume a municipal government is incapable of hiring a professional to perform city services?

Do you find a lack of "pros" working at the department of sanitation? department of water and sewers? What about the many municipal utility companies? Some of which operate nuclear reactors?

Re:Let's consider the situation...

[ebrandsberg]

Wireless is the wrong medium for high-speed internet access with the technology available today. Basically you are assuming ANYBODY can get good wifi coverage, and if it's free, it implicitly WILL suck if only from overuse and/or restrictions in service that are needed to keep it from being saturated. I'm not commenting as much on the government not being able to hire the best people, I'm questioning if that will even matter. The "Pros" have chosen to use DSL and Cable as the delivery medium, and I don't think this will change for reliable service any time soon.

Re:Let's consider the situation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Christ! Oh I don't know maybe it's because we're tired of the endless stories of malfeasance that eminate from municipalities. Sorry but you're just not going hire away the requisite skill sets for $35k-$50k a year.

Re:Let's consider the situation...

[ebrandsberg]

Good point too. :) My point though is that wireless itself sucks (don't even try arguing that point) and putting a network across the city will make it suck even more. The skill aspect isn't even at issue if the base technology sucks.

No, you are wrong

[Cryofan]

You say democracy is inferior to the market because in a democracy your vote does not count if you lose. Well, in the market, there is property. That is the essence of the market. However, most property in the market is jointly owned. And such property is controlled through VOTING. Ever heard of shareholders or owners VOTING? Happens all the time with publicly and privately owned entities. From corporations that sell their stock on the NYSE to condo homeowners' associations. Many such entities are organized to control jointly owned property. And guess what? Just as in democracy, there are winners and losers in such market-oriented VOTING procedures. You need to grow up and realize that your libertarian utopia is just a ideological canard promoted by powerful institutions in order to ideologically ensnare the naive. You are one of these naive, just as I used to be. Read. Learn. You can start here

monopoly is not an example of a free market

[toiletmonster]

You're not taking monopolies into account.

A monopoly is not an example of a free market. Its market that has been distorted and competitors are no longer free to compete because of actions taken by the monopolist. I think you are talking about market anarchy where criminals can impose their will on others. When people say "free market", they mean free in the same way the founding fathers meant it: you are free to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the freedoms of others. This requires a strong and fair justice system which means a strong federal government.

I support having a federal government to keep markets free. And as much as i dislike democracy, I can't think of a better way to run a government. However, democracy always oppresses the minority view and so we should avoid it as much as possible. Sometimes thats not possible. But lets stick to the free market as much as we can.

Do consumers in the market have the freedom to choose? To a limited extent, yes..and that limitation is IMPOSED by the controlling interest in the marketplace..because as we all know, business isn't interested in fairness or charity.

I'm unconvinced. Its true that consumers can't necessarily buy purple pickled peanuts at stores with red doors because the "controlling interest in the marketplace" doesn't care what color the store doors are and they don't like pickled peanuts or purple food. But in a marketplace people are free to choose from among the options that are out there and there are quite a lot of choices to be made as far as how you want to spend your money. Contrast that with an elected Congress who gets to decide what to do with 40% of your income. Or worse, contrast that with voting for president where you get 2 choices and 51% of the voters get to impose their choice on the other 49%.

Not that I have a better idea for how to choose a president. But again, democracy always oppresses the minority view and so we should avoid it as much as possible. Free markets give individuals freedom. Democracy is the group oppressing the individual.

Not Even

[toiletmonster]

I would point out that you haven't said anything that tried to dispute my argument that the free market is more free than a democracy. You have instead tried to convince me that a free market is just as bad as a democracy.

But there are major differences: shareholders are able to move their money into different companies. This is much different from voters in a government democracy who will find it very difficult to change countries.

And I still think you are overestimating the roll of voting in the market place. The only shareholders who bother to vote are large institutional investors. Most people don't vote at stock holder meetings. If they don't like how their money is being used, they take it out and put it some where else. As I already said above, this is not an easy option in a government democracy. And anyway how many of the market decisions that an individual makes every day involve the kind of voting you are talking about? Virtually none: buying groceries, individuals buying a home, how much to spend on what kind of healthcare, what color car to buy, which job you are going to take, buying and selling stock, etc.
In the market, people just make a decision and do it.

Copps implicitly endorses LPFM

[Randym]

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 with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace... They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'"

So, Commissioner Copps, you *ARE* for Low Power FM boardcasting, then, aren't you? You will recall that a study was done after the NAB complained that LPFM would 'interfere' with current channels and it was found that that was a *lie*. If you are all about freedom in the marketplace, why don't you slap down the NAB -- you know, "somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace" -- and ensure that LPFM goes forward with all deliberate speed? You are for free speech -- right? And what could be more democratic and indicative of an "ownership society" than permitting citizens to build, own and run their own low-power radio stations (that have now been shown to NOT interfere with commercial radio)?

Well?