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 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
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.
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
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
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/
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
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.
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!"
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.
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."
Roads
Air traffic control
Water
Sewage
Police
Fire department
Tax collection
Border patrol
Defense
War
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.
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
> 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.
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