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.
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?
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.
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.
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.