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.'"
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.
Ignore the rantings above. Poster is an idiot.
...if he was talking about indecency.
Either way, hardcore!
2 of the 5 FCC members are Demcrats. 3 are Republicans.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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 =)
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.
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.
i hate the FCC, just let me be me... I forgot the rest of the words --- http://onticfusion.sytes.net/
http://onticfusion.sytes.net/
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
Clearly there are alternate-universe versions of Copps and Powell running around doing good for the country!
Has anyone checked them for goatees?
We're happy Microsoft won a court motion. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/2016235.shtml ?tid=109&tid=123
l ?tid=155&tid=123
h tml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=3
l ?tid=153&tid=187&tid=123
Justice is served in the American court system. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/0531204.shtm
Half of Slashdot is mad at Apple. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/04/138234.s
The FCC is our friend. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/1828200.shtm
What happened to predictability?
Search google for him:
0 &s tart=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org. mozilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+copps&start=
Against Big media, looks out for the indi media and is looking to actually SET RULES instead of "notions" of what is wrong.
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.
Just in case anyone was wondering, this wasn't me posting as AC (and trying to stir up trouble again). ;o)
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
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.
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.
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'.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
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
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..
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
From congress.
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
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.
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
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!
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
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.
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
Bully pulpit mode 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.
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
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...
We need more guys with this mindset in Washington.
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.
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?
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.
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!"
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.
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.
Unlike the evil bit, the internet community might actually find a use for this one.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
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.
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."
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!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
so.... whats your point?
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.
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
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
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.
> 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.
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.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
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.
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
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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?
Try having a look at the already deployed municipal networks around the US, and compare. You can answer your own question.
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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?
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
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
...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?