Slashdot Mirror
SBC Promotes Texas Anti-Wireless Bill
rhythmx writes "Details of this bill have been previously covered on Slashdot. SBC has since put up TV ads and a website saying that our telecom laws need to be changed. From their propaganda, "The Texas legislature has the opportunity to modernize telecom regulation and promote innovation to finally reach our goals for new technologies and enhanced consumer benefits." They hardy even mention the bill itself, basically only that it is "Good for Texas -- Good for Texans." This bill has already passed through the House and is now in the Texas state Senate."
And what surprises you about this. A large corporation is lobbying both politically and publicly in favor of a position that supports its own interest and is contrary to the general public's interest. This is surprising? This is news?
Here's a news flash. Whining about SBC on Slashdot will have zero effect on this issue. ZERO There is, as yet, no law stopping you from putting up your own website and running your own television "propaganda" campaign on the matter.
What's more is that SBC is at least partly correct when they state that it is unfair that some providers, such as themselves, are regulated while others, such as any new comer, are not. It is unfair. I'm sure you aren't going to lose any sleep over SBC's losses, and neither am I but, if it were you that was being prejudiced against, you'd be crying the blues and singing another story completely.
You'd hope that any position that a telecom company takes on telecom regulation would be met with an appropriate degree of skepticism. Hey, you can't fault them for trying to spin the issue, but you can't really expect a balanced view of things.
The problem is using phrases like 'fair' and 'well-balanced' to describe a position that is clearly neither of those things. Fox News, anyone?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
of when SBC got the Illinois house and senate to draft, vote on, and enact a bill of their liking in less than a week. This was record time in our state. The amount of money this company dumps into state politics is so insane that they are entirely able to control the elected officials or fund the campaign of the person who will replace them in the next election.
They've also put up radio commercials featuring the "telecomedian." and I quote:
"Back in my day, a blog was a creature from the deep!"
"Back in my day, PDA meant Public display of affection!".
They portray it as laws holding back technological innovation, when in reality those laws help save us some $$$, and help the small businesses get a foot in the door. I grind my teeth every time I hear those commercials.
Damn... at first glance, I thought this story headline read "SBC Promotes Wireless Anti-Texas Bill".
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
As a libertarian I'm generally against state governments spending tax dollars on services that people would otherwise pay for themselves, but municipal Wi-Fi is not a bad thing. The goal is to provide information to people who wouldn't normally be able to access to it. It's not anti-competitive because people still need cable or DSL if they want their own IP address, a more reliable connection, a web server, or just more bandwidth... if they don't need these things then DSL/cable wouldn't be worth it to them anyway. Free Wi-Fi is no more wrong than having free public libraries... or more relevantly, free internet at public libraries. What is the difference between providing your citizens with encyclopedias for reference at libraries, and access to Wikipedia via municipal Wi-Fi? I will admit that I have purchased fewer books because I have had access to public libraries, but bookstores still have their place. Sometimes I would really rather own a book than check it out for a week. This service provides very basic internet access, and anybody who wants more than that will pay for it. SBC should not be any more worried than your local bookstore.
...and if you disagree respond insted of just modding me down, I'd way rather hear your point than go to karma hell =)
Good God, this may be the most depressing thing I've ever read.
This bill is no different then, let's say, forbidding the citizens of a municipality from forming their own fire department...and making only one company the legal provider of "fire protection services".
In short, SBC is asking the state of Texas to provide them with a legally-approved monopoly. And the state is doing it.
When does this stop? When will citizens realize that the very people they're putting in office are signing over every right and interest they have to corporations who has no regard for their health, safety, or welfare? (And I'm hoping that the citizenry is ignorant of what's happening, because if they're not, the notion that people are willing to sign over their democratic rights is too depressing for me to contemplate)
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
Rather than strapping our country into a PSTN that was never designed for DSL data rates, we should have a free-for-all on wifi, where anyone with the dollars can set up a subscription network.
Land-line broadband is hopelessly bundled with services that I don't want (cable tv, POTS). wifi is the only hope for unbundled broadband.
It is tempting to let municipalities do wifi - they would do it well, but the phone companies will always be at their throats with the legislative process.
I'd rather see the FCC set aside much more wifi bandwidth, and have my pick of 50 providers. I probably won't get that either, since everyone in government is bought and paid for.
The bill history for HB789 is interesting. Notably, it shows how quickly (and without a recorded vote so those of us who live in Texas can't even accuse our representatives of actually supporting this legislation) the bill passed.
Austin Wireless and Austin Wireless City both have coverage of what it means to Austin. The Save Muni Wireless group was put together in response to challenges like this; they include much better commentary on why HB789 is a bad idea than would be worth repeating here. If you really want to understand the issue, check some of these sites.
Even the High Tech Broadband Coalition (a group of telecom, hardware, and software companies) was against HB789.
Several local news stories:
For those in Texas who want this law changed, it's probably a good time to call or write your state Senator today before this bill sails through committee and a floor non-vote.
Here in Britain we also have a situation where prominent industry figures are increasingly represented on state regulatory boards.
If you can't rely on your politicians to refuse industry funding, and the fox is guarding the henhouse as a result of this, perhaps its time for someone to start protest sites and organise bodies to protest for the consumer instead of allowing legislation for the benefit of the industry
Protest at SBC and Verizon's offices, shops, outlets, as well as at state legislatures and ballot boxes. It might work....
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I have ZERO tolerance for this crap (but am not suprised by it). I also have ZERO sympathy for any phone company. They act like THEY paid for the copper and fiber. Maybe in the last couple of years they paid for some, but our tax dollars (possibly going back to your grandparents generation) paid for MOST of the cabling in this country. At least cable companies paid for their own dang lines. Though their bloodsucking sometimes too. In the end, Texans should act like Texans and shoot these thieves.
People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
They've been looking for a way to impose community standards on all Internet content, and this will be the perfect opportunity for control.
...may be how this is going to apply to WiMax.
The reason why ILECs are regulated is because the telephone was the primary method of realtime person-to-person communication which wasn't face to face for damn near 100 years, and government decided that it was vital enough to require that telephone service be provided to as many people as possible in as high of a state of reliability as possible. My wireline phone service has "downtime" far less than just about any other service I get.
However, it's a fair question to ask why they're regulated more than their new breed of competition. This new competition (wireless, VoIP, etc) has been far less reliable to this point in my experience. Vonage, while I love it, has certainly had repeated outages in the year that I've had it. It's been more reliable than Windows, but less reliable than my Verizon POTS.
Ditto with my Optimum Online.
If communications are essential for things like emergency service, and are a cause worthy of "universal service" type of access, then we need to regulate them to an extent to get the same level of reliability. If it's not that important, then there's no reason SBC should have to play by these rules, but not their competition.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
"Full grassroots and PAC management functionality"
"Legislator targeting".
Run the online demo. Especially the "asset tracking system", which generates maps It looks like Hollywood's vision of something a corrupt organization would use. But it's real.
Altoona PA subsidized a local non-profit to provide dialup internet service. Same excuse as normal: promote high technology.
The result:
1. The non-profit did the same mediocre job that every government subsidized project does.
2. Most of the independent ISPs (including the one I worked for) pulled out of Altoona since we couldn't compete (not enough people buy on quality; most buy on price).
3. As broadband was deployed, all the non-ILECs stayed out of Altoona.
4. The available options for Internet service in Altoona suck rocks.
Government subsidized anything sucks the life out of a market and just about guarantees stagnation. They're right to block it in Texas!
The better issue to be made is open access to the public infrastructure. The ILECs and cable companies use your right-of-way that you, the taxpayer, own. They should be compelled to open that part of their infrastructure to competitors at or near cost.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It would really suck if we had this infrastructure and weren't able to allow people to access it - the plan was to have full Internet access from most of the city.
The network is already up, with a nice page that explains what it is when you connect and open up IE.
I'm with you, but I think wireless Internet currently goes a little bit beyond basic services. 20 years from now I hope things are different, but the number of people with a wireless laptop are still probably in the minority, and hence taxing the general public wouldn't really be fair since you are benefitting those who could probably afford to pay for it themselves.
I guess for me the bottom line would really be the cost factor.
Thanks for posting those links. I honestly wouldn't have believed such a thing existed otherwise. Orwellian indeed.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
I'm glad that everyone is getting on board with communism / socialism these days. State and local governments should offer more taxpayer funded services to the general public that compete with existing businesses.
Other free services I would propose.
1. Free cell phone service.
2. Free gym memberships.
3. Free taxi service.
4. Free lawn service.
5. Free utilities.
6. Free automobile manufacturing.
7. Free gasoline.
8. Free computers.
9. Free higher education.
10. Free food.
Of course taxes might have to be raised a bit, but it surely any one of these services would be worth it.
We're Texans! We done damn know freedom, so let's vote as Texans to do this thing!
While we're at it, let's vote for legalized prostitution! Texans always like a good romp in the sack, and by golly let's vote for this thing because we're Texan!
And now, come to think about it, let's vote for legalized guns in the workplace! Texans always used to carry their guns to work, let's get together as Texans and rally together a huge Texan vote for this Texan-commonsense policy for Texas!
YeeeHah!
Hey, everyone has bias, man. Fox is out to make a buck, too, just like everyone else. I focused on Fox because of their use of the phrase 'fair and balanced' to describe their reporting.... because SBC used the same phrase here. As my original post indicated, I don't have a problem with bias (it's unavoidable!), but I do have a problem with pretending you are unbiased when you clearly are not. CBS owned up. Has Fox?
Full disclosure: I'm biased as hell against Fox. Sue me.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Why did zonk squeeze this into the "hardware" department, and not politics or YRO?
I have slashdots "politics" section blocked for a reason. I don't care about your whiney "me hatey boosh" flamefests.
I want to read about neat hardware, and hear some discussion about things technical.
Categorizing this news as "hardware" is pretty much akin to circumventing spam filters.
In the future, don't try to trick me into reading about your political views.
I am not intrigued, and would not like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If you lookup the house journal the day of the vote, you will find a sweet bit of irony....
"The invocation was offered by Dr. Charles D. Walton, senior pastor, First
Baptist Church, Conroe, as follows:
Heavenly Father, we assemble today in an effort to accomplish what is best
for the citizens of Texas. There are good people here with good hearts, good
minds, and good intentions even though, we confess, Lord, there are times we
find it difficult to admit this to one another."
I don't care.
Vote Quimby!
It is not FREE... it has to be paid by someone. I for one do not want my taxes going to pay for some teenage boy's ability to surf for pr0n. Plus, whenever the gov't gets involved, regulation, restriction, and censorship are not far behind. Finally, name one major profitable telco/provider that does NOT run more efficiently than any entity within the government.
Those corrupt and shady Texas senators should keep they dirty hands off our internet. We already have more than enough regulation as it is and do not need any more.
they screwed us, now let SBC screw them.
I suppose it's encouraging that SBC thinks there's enough of a correlation between pulic support and a bill passing that they're campaigning with ads and a website...?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
How is it communism if the majority of people choose to have the government provide certain services? That's a democracy if ever there was one. What you're suggesting is that ideologically the free market (i.e. corporations) must rule above the will of the people, and even in contradiction to the will of the people, which if it were strictly the case that would be far more closely aligned to other totalitarian/mercantilist/communist systems. The executive board of a small handful of companies should not be imposing decisions on communities about how any service should be provided. Now you might ask, should people be "allowed" to vote in a socialist policy? Of course they should, if they were not then it would not be a democracy anymore (don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism with communism etc.) ... modern democracies like the USA are full of socialist-like policies (e.g. minimum wage), and most people actually regard them as a good thing for society at large.
Hey, if the telco's and cable companies charged per bit transported over their backbone or through their access points, they'd still see the money for transporting the bits from the city's wi-fi access points, wouldn't they?
But, of course, the telco's and cable companies don't do that, they sell access to one customer at a time, and (in the case of the cable companies, at least) threaten users who share the access via their own wireless links.
If the telco industry moved to charging for bits transported and nothing else, a lot of this concern about subsidized competition would fade away, as the subsidized competition would need to buy the long range bit transport from the telcos anyway.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Big special interests attack the weakest and most corrupt states first.
Marx did not envision the idea that communism would be voluntary. Read up his works.
Living in Houston I'd like to know if anyone has had results in trying to get their opinion heard and who is the best government offical to contact. Information about the best means of contact would be good too, I know emails are said to be ignored but is faxing, mailing letters, or a phone call the most effective?
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
There's some otherwise very smart people living and working in Austin on technology right now. For example, one of the two IBM Linux Technology Centers in the US is there. The other is in my hometown of Portland, Oregon---one of the most wireless-friendly cities in the nation.
I hope Texans pass this bill, and rigorously enforce it. It'd be good for the Oregon economy.
It'll be interesting in a few years to see if there is correlation between Wifi and VOIP over-regulation and the red or blue status of each state. This will tell us which party is more corrupt. I believe the reds are in the lead so far.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I believe the word you are looking for to describe this system of governance, whereby the free market and corporations rule above the will of the people, is fascism. Sadly there seems to be a bit of a trend towards this laws of this type lately...
I think Benito Mussolini said it best (paraphrasing someone else, no doubt) as:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The bill says:
(b) A municipality may not offer to the public, directly or indirectly, wireless broadband communications services, including wireless fidelity , or Wi-Fi, services, unless the municipality was providing the service on or before September 1, 2006, or unless the municipality has filed with the commission before June 15, 2006, a statement of intent to provide the service that meets the requirements of Subsection (c) of this section.
So the existing municipal wi-fi systems can continue operating, and any cities that were mulling over the possibility of doing it had better get their lazy asses in motion and get their systems up and running within the next year, or at least file the paperwork declaring their intent to provide wi-fi by the grandfathering deadline.
....good come from Texas? Why are still a part of the union?
I know it's a flame which is why I posted AC, but seriously, Texas = bad PR for the U.S.
Seems like most of the assholes in politics this week come from Texas. Fuck their state and fuck them.
As a resident of Texas, I actually wasn't aware fo this until I opened up Slashdot today. First, shame on me.
Fool me once... shame on... shame on you.
Fool me.. you can't get fooled again.
...not to move to texas. As if I needed another. As my friend Con Jr.'s dad would say, stupid hilly-billy red necks!!
Fine, they want to stop free access?! Fine, we can play this game.
If I owned a coffee shop and previously offered free WiFi access, then if this bill got passed I would charge....1 penny. And to boot, I would roll it up in the price of the coffee.
Life is not for the lazy.
it is cheaper and more efficient to combine your purchasing power. this is one of the concepts behind publicly funded infrastructure and what makes governments the leading purchasers in most industries. try building your own roads and see if you get a better deal on the asphalt than your municipal/state government.
big business has a definite interest in preventing your government from screwing up their profitibality projections for your city.
sum.zero
ps i wish people still read that everything i needed to know i learned in kindergarten book. sharing and helping others is good for you. it is, in fact, the good old american way.
Is it fair for the cities to decide that it should be free and drive them out of business?
This is the same criticism that:
City-sponsored wifi isn't going to put anyone out of business. It's simply going to push the commercial providers to the next level of service offerings. That's the same as what happens in all the private vs. public examples I've given above. The government provides the baseline infrastructure that supports all kinds of interest in a given technology or service. Then the private sector extends that infrastructure with value-add features and quality that inspires consumers to pay for the private offerings. In the case of wifi, cities will probably put in 802.11g for now. Providers like Verizon can tout 802.11n for 100Mbps+ Wi-Fi with a monthly service fee.
The corporations are resisting this because they are missing a product lifecycle they can run consumers through (802.11g) that they can improve upon in subsequent years for people to upgrade to. Or, they'd like to offer multiple tiers of products at a range of prices to sell to rich and poor consumers. If the govt. carries the bottom end, corporations are somewhat limited to the upper tier offerings.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
. . .citizens of a municipality from forming their own fire department...and making only one company the legal provider of "fire protection services".
It's interesting you mention that, because when cities began to grow to the point where they needed more than a volunteer fire department in the United States, fire services was commercial. It quickly became clear that competition was not a good thing when you had multiple firehouses racing to the same fire and fighting for resources to fight the same fire.
People don't realize this is part of a concerted effort to help bring Texas back to its golden age. Yes - the 19th century. With your help we can get rid of progress and innovation and create a simpler, God fearing Texas.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
On one hand, I can see how great it would be to have free WiFi. Hell, it is great to get free ANYTHING these days. However... ... if I owned an ISP, and somebody was basically using my line to give away internet access for free (or for a fee), that would piss me off under certain circumstances. This is also seriously compromises my consumer market. This kind of behavior is anti-competitive to say the least. I don't care if it is a municipality, a company, or an an individual.
Its probably beating a dead horse, but it bears saying. Purchasing a product doesn't necessarily mean that you can do whatever you want with it. And I'm glad for this... otherwise things like the GPL would be rendered meaningless.
I realize that there is a monopoly/oligopoly issue here which further muddies the issue. But anti-competitive behavior still goes two ways. Companies have to play nice for the good of the market, and consumers have to play nice for the good of the market.
I'm still out to lunch on this issue, but there has to be a balance somewhere where consumers can be happy and the upstream providers can be happy.
From the text of the document to be passed:
Sec. 53.401. APPLICATION OF SUBCHAPTER. This subchapter
applies only to a rural incumbent local exchange company.
Sec. 53.402. NEW SERVICES. (a) A rural incumbent local
exchange company shall price each new service at or above the
service's long run incremental cost. The commission shall allow
the company to establish a service's long run incremental cost by
adopting, at that company's option, the cost studies of a larger
company for that service that have been accepted by the commission.
(b) An affected person, the office on behalf of residential
or small commercial customers, or the commission may file a
complaint at the commission challenging whether the pricing by a
rural incumbent local exchange company of a new service is in
compliance with Subsection (a).
How is restricting rural companies from offering competitive based pricing going to help boost competition? Why are urban companies not prohibited from doing the same?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
""The Texas legislature has the opportunity to modernize telecom regulation and promote innovation to finally reach our goals for new technologies and enhanced consumer benefits.""
WTF? That's a pretty damn funny line if you ask me. Promoting innovation by stopping the spread of wireless? Yeahhh...I guess once they get this passed, they'll promote their next "innovation" by moving to a phone "system" of two soup cans and a string. They will of course charge twice what customers are paying now for the backwards phone infrastructure already in place.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
4. Subject Vonage and other VoIP services to the same QoS minimums that ILECs are currently subject to
I have a home in Texas with SBC providing phone lines (most of the time - sometimes we have to go without). Still no DSL service to that area, and it isn't forecast to be installed anytime soon. It takes a couple of days for crews to check on line problems if it is a single home, during which time that home has no 911 service. I have had to jump into neighbors's yards to repair lines that came out of the ground and were weed-wacked to be able to use my own phone. The only company with worse service was Charter Cable, who took a month to fix a problem when an improperly installed line-filter took out cable internet for the whole neighborhood.
With this in mind, it is my opinion that making other providers meet the same quality of service as SBC is like making all operating system software meet the same security level as Windows 98 with Outlook and Internet Explorer, but without antivirus. Others may have different experiences with Windows 98 or SBC, but I hope you understand my point.
Maybe a better idea would be to make all providers, SBC especially, meet a higher minimum level of service. 911 doesn't do any good if you can't call them, and it is severely degraded if they can't figure out where you are when you do call.
This topic came up in a recent episode of the PBS news magazine NOW. Of particular interest was SBC's attempt to squash the attempts of a small community in Indiana (not served with broadband by SBC) to stave off hemorrhaging jobs by establishing a municipal wireless service.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
"No, the government's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution *regardless of the will of any group arrogant enough to call themselves 'the people'.*"
That is what it should be, correct. However, too often the "duty" that is Job One for government is to enrich and empower itself. This is why we have such things as the Constitution: to place a roadblock in the path of "absolute power corrupting absolutely".
"My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions? "
You have THAT much respect for Bob Vila? Wow!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
911 Voip web site Lots of ads here in the Dallas area on the radio and tv about this subject. Now I see the SBC is behind all of this.
Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting someone else to do the work. --John G. Pollard
Just thinking of it, I bet you get a knot in your stomach, don't you? Just thinking about all these Americans doing whatever they can to weaken the monopoly power of the telco companies, just thinking about them fighting back against the hierarchy, that gives a "traditionalist" like you heartburn, don't it? You like to style yourselfs as "libertarians" or "conservatives" these days, but in reality you are really just the manifestation of redneckism or fascism or the witch hunt. You are the eternal voice of hardwired brain circuitry of the pack animal, the voice of the pack, the voice of tradition, the voice of darwinian animal that demands obesiance to the leader, to the alpha male, to religion, to the status quo, to perpetuating the genes of those at the top.
You aint nothing new. We however are new. We are the anti-animal, the new human. We started up about the time of the French Revolution. We were there at Shay's Rebellion, and at the Haymarket riots and on the demonstration lines protesting the Vietnam war. And we say "Fuck You" to power and to corporate feudalism. We will continue to fight in whatever venue we can.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
It's just called 'stupidity'.
Only steers and queers come from Texas, and you don't look much like a steer.
-FL
Regulation was put in place in the first place because the phone company (The Bell System) was basically given a state and federal subsidized monopoly to build and own the ONLY phone system that existed. Even after the breakup of AT&T into smaller companies (which is now 75% back together again as SBC, how odd is that?), the baby bells, as they were called, still had a monopoly on wired phone services, still subsidized in many ways by federal, state, and local governments. Those companies owned assets that were, as pointed out in a post above, paid for by state and federal tax breaks, subsidizes, and a government controlled monopoly. (city and state governments still owned most of the polls for example and controlled who had access.) As such, in order to promote fair competition for new service providors, these monopoly companies were required by law to sell at "wholesale" their network to companies that wanted to play in the game as well. As an EX-SBC director, I can tell you that SBC from day one inflated their "costs" of running these networks to the government so that they could offer their own services cheaper than could anyone who "leased" the product and resold it. Gee, who would have guessed? So they publicly complained about having to sell the network access; They publicly complained that they lost money doing it (a lie!); and they continued to undercut any competitor trying to compete in their space. AND, all the while, still had the monopoly position from which to play in an uneven playing field. You would not believe the tax breaks these phone companies were (and probably still are) getting. The complaint from SBC and other baby bells, and the complaint still, is that this regulation stifles competition. They cry "...let them build their own networks..." forgetting that the network they have was built with heavy subsidizes under a monopoly. From inside the company, it was a big joke. They knew damn well that none of the small new start-ups could afford to build a new network, and this was just fine. And of course, any large competitor that could build a competing network could not get past all the local and state government regulations to do so. How convenient for the baby bell. In one way, I have to agree though. If a competitor can simply buy at discount the network they need, then the services never get any better than what already exists from the largest Bell Company in that area. Why build at billions of dollars when you can lease cheaply. That said, we WERE building a new network at Pacific Bell/SBC, a hybrid fiber and coax network to carry phone, TV, and data to the customer. And as much as we complained that we were building with our own money, the government insisted from day one that we offer the network to competitors at wholesale rates. Suffice it to say, I believe this is one main reason SBC stopped deploying the network and sold these assets to then AT&T, those same assets now owned by Comcast Cable. Basically to avoid having to build one of the most advanced networks in the state at the time, and then "sell the services at a loss" (so they claimed, it was not true) to competitors that wanted a free ride into all the homes. Strangely enough, we DID build the system from day one to easily allow competitors into all three spaces: TV, high speed data, and phone service, and if the system that Comcast now deploys is anywhere similar, which I believe it is since they bought it from SBC indirectly, it is still set up that way, so easy competition should not be a problem. Just for the record, the ONLY reason we were allowed to build a new network in large cities is because we were Pacific Bell/SBC, the local phone company. We had government pull that allowed us to build a cable network as a phone system which competed directly with the local cable company. In most places, most new companies will never be allowed to build a new network, wireless or wired, into a city that already has a very cozy deal with the established provider.
I think you're missing the point with the WiFi discussion. Municipal governments have the power to tax and set rates for SBC. Now they want to go in direct competition with SBC. Why is it that anyone who sees this as a conflict of interest is a greedy corporate swine. Governments have no business in the phone business, water business, or any business other than GOVERNMENT.
You're right just complain about how this is going to do nothing. Spend your time explaining to others on Slashdot how they are wasting their time.
Don't write a letter.
Don't call your congressperson.
Don't join others http://www.savemuniwireless.org/ who support this cause.
Seriously, unless you are a libertarian, a SBC employee or worried about the effect of cheap high speed internet on the masses this should be your issue. SBC is fighting for their interests I respect that. But shutting down municipal wireless is not the answer. Let your congressperson know.
This same bill will be brought to your state (in some form) next (if it hasn't already).
Q: Do you know how to find Texas?
A: From the East coast go west until you smell it and south until you step in it.
Remember, when a politician speaks, they are lying.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
What, exactly, is corrupt about GIS? Maybe I missed something, but that looks like a demographics tool. I don't think I saw a HEATHENS chart or a SMITE button.
Huh? An organization like Rock The Vote is orwellian?
--apYa know? I've been hearing the same kind of commercials on the radio in Connecticut. Basically, it's an ad by SBC urging the populace to demand that the state update its outdated telecom laws.
Of course, I was immediately suspicious. As far as I can tell, it's very rare that government makes a new law that is beneficial to the public, and increases our liberties and choices. It's been my sad experience that every time they pass a new law, we lose a little more freedom.
Glad to hear that others are alarmed by the situation, but at the same time, I now see it as a giant global conspiracy... keep an eye out for the black helicopters. *grin*
The Digital Sorceress
This is the same old story and SOP for SBC. They did the same thing when their sponsored legislation was on the table in Indiana. HB 1148 and HB 1518 favored the ILEC and put forward their agenda. Same commercials ran here, "Man Using Outdated Cell phone", "PDA", etc... These were sponsored by the USTA under the guise of consumer benefits. The bottom line, regardless of which side come you come down on is this- prior to 1996, all of these publicly traded and commercial ILEC's enjoyed a monopolistic competitive advantage. So even if you level the playing field and deregulate all aspects of the telco's, they still start from a point of great advantage because their entire product and service line were built with that advanatge- no competition.
All this bill is good for is to make sure SBC keeps "donating" money to the Texas senators. In a politically intact country we would call that bribery at the expense of the people.
When a commercial entity such as SBC considers installing broadband access in a neighborhood, they have to consider the business case for it. I built a house a year and a half ago in a quickly developing affluent area. It was in an established community with my house going into Phase 4. SBC said that although they would only need to add a DSL switch in their nearby office, they had no plans to offer DSL service in my area for at least 6-12 months (I haven't heard if they ever did install it.) The 3 local cable providers each thought the other was installing service and as a result I was stuck with remote access to work over dial-up for my first 6 months there. Meanwhile I worked my way up to the community developer who pressured Charter into putting in service.
In time, there will be no need for phone books, landline phones, music CDs, or DVD movies. But we're not going to get there without widespread accessibility to broadband service. And widespread accessibility won't happen without a compelling business case for each area. Therefore, if governments want to promote technology and the benefits it brings (despite the negatives), their only option in many cases is to provide the service that commercial entities see no need for.
Just because it is installed by the government doesn't mean it is free. Though there is a move toward privatization, many public sewers and water services, are still provided by government entities in many communities, and those things don't come without a monthly bill.
Still, for the cost of some lawyers and lobbiests, companies such as SBC are trying to prevent this from occurring "just in case" they might want to offer service some day... at their convenience.... if they feel like it.
I don't think government should compete with existing installs, but in areas where there are none, I applaud the goal of governments changing that for their citizens. If a company wants to object, then they should have to show proof that they were intending to install there and then be given a reasonable deadline for installation of their service. If they are unable to complete it, then the government is free to do it themselves. Governments may in time, want to sell off that division to a local company but it should be priced as any company with existing customers would. The government took the business risk where the other company didn't, that company shouldn't be able to benefit from that by getting a special deal on it.
You can't do it yourself. Some other reader who has mod points available must do it... "moderating" is a form of peer review and reward (or punishment) by your fellow slashdot readers for posting something that is informative, insightful, funny, etc (or offtopic, or flamebait).
Wi-Fi is only one solution, but it illustrates the desire we have for bandwidth. Having more options makes the Internet more ubiquitous -- which is what it wants, and what humans seem to want.
Telcos should NOT be the ONLY option -- and they're not. They are, however, trying to be, and where they fail is why other means are necessary (Cable, Wi-Fi, Cellular, Free-Space Optics, etc.). Telcos fail us by charging superior prices for nominal services.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I used to like Ameritech. I had friends who worked at Ameritech. Then they got bought. Since then, customer service has been dismal (including getting billed for six months for DSL at a phone line I no longer had).
SBC is an Evil Texas Corporation (tm), and I refuse to put one thin dime in their pockets.
Now if I can figure out how to get a cable modem where I live without using Comcast, I'll really be happy.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
You are correct. The American Founding Fathers were trying to protect the rich land-owners of the time from such horrors as the Debtors Rebellion, also called Shays' Rebellion.
The constitution was a direct response to this threat: that people who fought for "democracy" might actually want to have some say over how the law and economy would function:
From the Wiki article:
Calling themselves Regulators, men from all over the western and central parts of [Massachusetts] began to agitate for change. Initial disturbances were mostly peaceful and centered primarily on freeing incarcerated farmers from debtor's prisons. In the late summer of 1786 the conflict escalated when armed Regulators shut down debtor courts in Northampton, Worcester, Concord, and elsewhere. After the passage of the Riot Act, the Regulators seized arms from the Springfield Armory. Militia groups called out to fight the Regulators often switched sides.
The rebellion eventually gelled into an organized army, led by one Daniel Shays, a farmer from East Pelham and a former captain in the Revolutionary Army. Another leader, Luke Day, was the son of a wealthy family in West Springfield. While the Regulators are usually thought of as a rabble of poor farmers, many of them were members of prominent local families, including the Dickensons of Amherst. In addition, many of the rebels were former soldiers who fought in the American Revolution.
In short, the term "tyranny of the majority" in context really means keeping democracy in check. I believe the origin of the phrase comes from from James Madison:
(From a Noam Chomsky article)
In the debates on the Federal Constitution, [Madison] pointed out that "in England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," undermining the right to property. To ward off such injustice, "our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation," arranging voting patterns and checks and balances so as "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
So really, if you are for this bill, you are one of those people who doesn't like "too much democracy".
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
Hell, I can grow vegetables, fix things, build things, and all sorts of other stuff. I don't think I need to live in a 1800's reenactment camp, but I things I would do perfectly fine in some wacky hippie commune, and prolly better there than in this 9-5 Bogusworld that America has become today.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
"And the government needs to asses the cost of negative externalities, and charge that cost to the appropriate party."
I have already addressed your concern. If you don't know what a negative externality is, look it up. You assume that I am a rabid no-nothing libertarian without just cause.
in demonstrating how to truly screwup a good thing buy handing it all over the big corporations. We have an "Aggie" running the state for god's sake. And when I say, "for God's sake" I'm not shittin'. The problem is that the entire country is following are lead.
SBC still hasn't upgraded my DSL to 2x as promised back in January...
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
This bill is in the Business & Commerce committee in the Senate, which has been referred 252 bills this committee, of which 221 are still in committee. Of these, approx. 14 are bills that were passed by the House and are waiting the Senate's vote. The next few scheduled meetings of the Senate Business & Committee are just to consider Senate bills, so it could be weeks before this bill is even consider in committee, if it ever is.
.
The bill would have to pass committee intact, then be referred back to the general body of the Senate, placed on the calendar for a vote, and then voted on. A suprising number of bills are killed by being passed by committee but never placed on the calendar - it's a way for the Senate to kill bills without actually killing them, so they can try to keep their campaign contributors AND their voters happy.
So, this is far from a done deal. Until the bill is out of the Senate Business & Commerce committee, I'd strongly urge you, especially if you're a Texas resident, to contact the members of the Business & Commerce committee.
The Senate Business & Commerce committee consists of:
Chair: Senator Troy Fraser (R-Abilene)
Vice-Chair: Senator Kip Averitt (R-Granbury)
Members:
Senator Kenneth Armbrister (D-Victoria)
Senator Kim Brimer (R-Ft. Worth)
Senator John Carona (R-Dallas)
Senator Kevin Eltife (R-Longview)
Senator Craig Estes (R-Denton)
Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville)
Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio)
Each link goes to that senators homepage at the Texas State Senate website. Most, if not all, of the senators have a web form on their site to allow you to easily email them your comments. They also list addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers - remember, letters and faxes are given much more weight than emails, so if you are really concerned about this, drop them a letter. Let them know that you are contacting them about a bill that has been referred to their committee from the House, HB 789
I've dealt with a few of the senators in this bunch, and of the ones I know, it's a real assortment - there's a true hardcore old-style Texas politician or two in the group, but there's also a few more progressive, modern politicians that will listen to what their constiutents have to say, even over the constant drone of lobbyists in Austin.
What the fuck else did you expect them to say?
That's like asking Kofi if he was receiving kickbacks from his son while Saddam was funneling money through Switzerland.
"Oh, shit. Yeah. I was on the take. My bad. I made a bad call and it just snowballed from there. We've taken care of that issue, now, and we should look to the future.
No. I don't think you should investigate because it's already been taken care of. We have other things we need to worry about, like a global tsunami warning system. We're going to need $10 billion for that project in cash-money.
Just wire it to this Swiss bank account.
Yeah, in Switzerland. That's right. Thanks."
Many years ago I had ricochet access in my area. Having always available intenet connectivity made a huge difference in my life. It is pretty easy to see that a lot of new applications and companies could take advantagge of ubiqitous wifi. Wearable and ubiquitous computing would especially be enabled.
I have waited years for the corps to bring out ubiquitous wifi at decent price/performance. I am still waiting even here in th heart of Silicon Valley! I should not be without such access in the 21st century. All of us annd the writers of such apps and our very competitiveness as a people should not be held up by some contrived argument that only by waiting on the telco are we good capitalists! The telcos are not up to the job. I doubt vry much that they wish to be. It is much more profitable to instead sell the public a feature or two at a time on cell phones and require continuous upgrade of cell phones to use the features to boot. Ubiquitous open internet at reasonable speeds is the last thing they want. Why with that any old programmer could write new apps and put them up for $$ or free with no $$ to the telcos. So don't hold your breath waiting for telcos to roll out area-wide unlimited wifi.
I am sorry but I will not sit still for the future being held hostage to the balance sheets of these companies.
just because a government offers a service does not mean that corporate interests cannot also offer a similar service. the key will be what added values the the corporate interests bring to the table and at what price point.
as i've posted elsewhere, i expect that the governments will outsource or strategic partner the infrastructure and maintenance. who do you think keeps all these american companies in business anyway? that's right, it's the government as the leading purchaser of their products and services.
you people are so afraid of your government. i guess if it was mine, i'd be afraid to.
and why shouldn't basic wifi access be a public good? it is becoming increasingly difficult to function in this world without access to basic functionality like email.
lastly, this discussion is about corporate interests making it illegal for a government to act on behalf of its citizens. yay freedom!
sum.zero
... is much like saying stupidity is a valid point of view.
Personally, I'd prefer paying sales and other taxes for unlimited wireless to being charged $102.56 for a setup I was told would cost $34.99. Ironically the phone lines in Austin are most used for phone spam, so I should also say I prefer paying taxes to paying for advertising, too.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
as i stated, the government in question is quite likely to outsource/strategic partner the endeavour. that puts the money in the pockets of business and benefits the citizens too. this is common in the united states. the economy depends on this.
the government offers many goods and services that are also offered or complemented by corporate interests. there are free clinics, but you can pay for better service at non-free ones. there is medicare, which uses the existing industry to deliver the services.
public wi-fi is non-excludable if implemented so as to be non-excludable. other public goods are only non-excludable, imho, because we decide to make them so. i won't get into access issues to non-excludable services such as voip calls to 911 getting error messages.
non-rivalrous? maybe not, but as you yourself acknowledge we do accept certain items as public goods even if they don't fit the exact criteria. why not make an exception here when many stand to gain considerable benefit, both end users and the providers, especially in light of the fact that the established business interests are not moving to fill the gap. the lack of broadband deployment to rural areas is an example of why sometimes the profit-motive system is not always the best choice for the populace.
lastly, my argument about freedom was that the proposed changes would make the people less free. many communities want this service. why should the people not be free to receive it? because it hurts the business interests? most of the established business interests have been subsidised in one form or another in order to get them to where they are today.
sum.zero