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."

Comments

Free Wi-Fi not so bad...

[awhelan]

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 =)

Re:Radio...

[Loco3KGT]

Save you money?

How does the government installing wireless everywhere save you money? The government is paying for that with tax dollars. You remember taxes? Where the government takes your money and gives it to someone else?

Re:It's all about the spin.

[DrinkingIllini]

Good for Texas...Good for Texans
That has to be the most inane slogan I've ever heard, but I'm sure the idiot majority will eat it up with a spoon.

Spin is a drain on the country. I wish someone besides John Stewart would come out on one of these news shows and call bullshit. All the pundits are just talking heads for their respective parties, spewing inane talking points 'til the cows come home.

Well, this is depressing

[the arbiter]

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)

Re:Well, this is depressing

[the arbiter]

I don't see anything in any municipal Wi-Fi proposal, anywhere, that says the municipality will be the sole mandatory provider of wireless services. So I'm unclear as to how "the government" obtains a monopoly from these proposals. They're just one provider among many. And since I PAID for the freaking infrastructure, I'd like to see the government I ELECTED have the option to provide service on that infrastructure.

What is clear from the article and legislation being proposed is that SBC doesn't want competitors. Had you read the article, you would have read that there are not "a lot" of Wi-Fi providers duking it our in Texas, but only two, SBC and Verizon. It's quite clear that they want a duopoly, just like they have here in northern San Diego, and they'll spilt the state up between the two of them, just like they have here in Southern California. SBC gets some areas, Verizon gets the rest. There's no locale here where you get to choose between them. It's either one or the other. It's not pretty. High cost and shitty, surly service.

I wish you had a good point with the "do you want the government owning your ISP" argument, but sadly every ISP in America seems more than willing to comply with any government request for information or restrictions, legal or not. I just can't see how it would make any difference who my provider is, government or private, as they all operate under the same rules and restrictions.

Sadly, I can think of at least clear benefit from "the government" owning my ISP, in that they have little financial incentive to harvest and sell information about my browsing and buying habits as so many ISPs do.

Rather than asking why...

[PornMaster]

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.

Re:Rather than asking why...

[learn fast]

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

You slept through economics class again, didn't you?

The reason why telephone service was regulated was not because it was the "primary method of realtime person-to-person communication" it's because phone service was believed to be a natural monopoly , meaning that costs could only be lowest with one, large firm serving everybody. But since that firm would be able to charge whatever it wanted or deny service to anyone it really felt like (it being the only firm in the market) natural monopolies must be heavily regulated to prevent that.

In theory, the inefficiency of regulation will less than either the firm would behave if totally uncontrolled or if left to competition (or outright socialization of the firm). Utilities, like water or power service for example, are ideal examples of natural monopoly -- we can't have many competing firms trying to install their own pipes or telephone poles.

Anyway, for much more than I can describe here, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly.

Re:Get a grip.

[stratjakt]

Call a state Senator? Write him?

Yes, write your representative, tell him he's lost a vote.

Write your own words, without resorting to name calling or cursing, or any other immature stuff that would get your letter summarily tossed into the trash can.

Don't send a boilerplate letter, partake in a mass-mailing, and don't waste time signing some online petition, those go straight to the trash can too (and for good reason, since they all reek of an agenda).

Believe it or not, when politicians start to see a growing number of real registered voters are turning against them, they actually do take heed.