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.'"

9 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. make up your mind! by museumpeace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    1. Re:make up your mind! by museumpeace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  2. Re:The FCC is provided certain authority ... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  3. Re:Today in Bizarro Land by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  4. Re:When municipal networks attack.... by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  5. Just to start a little discussion... by Marran+Gray · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "There are hundreds of game theorists at the gates, sir, and they want to hold an election!"
  6. Commodity or Utility by 0x0000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

    --
    "The Internet is made of cats."
  7. Ummmm, yey! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > 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!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Let's consider the situation... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.