Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
...if he was talking about indecency.
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.
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.
The Internet is generally stupid
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.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
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.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
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.
/. hate scale.
Or maybe it is just that comapanies are above the government on the
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."
"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.
Vote for Pedro
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.
I forget what 8 was for.
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.