Slashdot Mirror
Texas Wireless Ban Has Failed
chip rosenthal writes "The effort to ban municipal networks in Texas has failed. Texas House Bill 789 originally had provisions to ban muni wireless networks. The Senate passed a significantly rewritten version, without a ban. A conference committee failed to reach agreement, so the bill died when the Texas legislature adjourned this weekend."
Close call. The attempt to forbid cities and towns from offering wireless services was seriously misguided.
Public wireless is like roads and street lights. Like roads, public wireless access enables economic development. When a road is paved, houses and businesses spring up around it. When an urban area has street lighting, business and civic life continues into the night.
Most streets aren't toll roads, and street lights don't have a fee per block. These services are generally accepted to provide public benefit above and beyond the revenue they would bring if they relied on fee-for-service funding.
Networking is in an early stage, like street lights were a long time ago. Cities and towns ought to be able to make their own decisions about what will bring economic development to their area. Each municipality makes its own decisions about roads and public transportation. Similarly, the decision about whether and how to provide wireless services should be a local decision. We don't want to *prevent* cities and towns from choosing to provide wireless as a service that will incent additional economic activity. We don't want to mandate one model, for the whole state, in an early stage of development.
How many want to bet that it will be back in the next session? The persistence of corporate greed should never be underestimated.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Last thing we need is more dumb telecom legislation.
Now if congress would get off their ass and put together a real bill that governed fiber bandwidth intelligently, we'd be in business.
Seriously, we need to pull the rug out from under the damn cable companies. They're making a mint prentending they're not in the same business as phone companies (moving info), and the laws support it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
But, but, but... Like one of the posters above said, never underestimate corporate greed. This will rise from the dead. Will those prisoners rise again? I see a movie in this somewhere...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
As a Texan, I'm glad that the last bits of that last session were spent trying to do more important things like finding funding for schools. The whole thing seemed like entity was trying to slip it through so when it was found (and called out) the thing was pretty much dead in the water. I am glad that they didn't mess with the current system of telecommunications- one of my favorite things about Texas is the pretty fast broadband that I have in a pretty rural area. Touching anything might kill the golden goose.
Open Source Sushi
The latest horror classic, LAN of the Living Dead
This is my post. See sig above ^
asusming that no municipality has thier own copper or fiber to the internet - they must be using one of the telecom's, which could then limit the usage of anonymous connections in thier usage policy. Which of course would need to be enforced. Its like the cable company, I can physically wire all my neighbors off my one connection and pay $x for each additional box and hence save $$ on each install tht was no longer needed - but that is against the usage policy. same thing -0
"You overestimate this conference committee, the power to pass or fail legistlation is nothing compared to the power of corporate greed."
"You're sad devotion to that inhuman corporate machine hasn't given you the power to conjure away all the citizen's rights or the power...." (hurk---gah....)
"I find your lack of faith... disturbing..."
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Internet access is not, never has been, and should not be considered a basic public service.
The Internet is a medium of communication for individuals and groups, organizations, and companies, people and assemblies of all kinds. As a medium of communication, putting ownership and control of access to it in the hands of government is a very very bad idea that relies on a false idea that the government can be trusted because it is the government which gives us rights and therefore will protect them on any service it provides.
This nation, as with all other nations of humans, has a long history of illustrating just the opposite. Government descends from our basic rights as humans, not the other way around. We make right of our right to free will to choose to organize and co-operate under governance, not to exist at the leisure of it.
Governments inherently being creatures of our darker tendencies and mob rule, are not and never have been given inherently towards respecting or protecting our rights, but ever seek to intrude upon them and limit them.
Yet despite all the socialist alarm bells about the present president turning this nation into the bastard offspring of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, the same people all too often seem to think that government should provide the conduit through which we express ourselves. If this be the case, then let us turn over all the printing presses, computers, word processors, typewriters, phones and phone service and paper supplies and all other mediums of communication right now to the government.
Anyone trust that the government will distribute these mediums as best fits our rights and needs or would they do as they more often do, limit, choke, control?
Internet service by government is to put that access in the hands of politicians and politics. Two things that should be kept as far away and have as little contact as possible with it. Putting my tax dollars on this is tantamount to forcing me to contribute to something destined to become embroiled ina civil rights clusterf*ck of all time in the near future. Let us cut to the chase and not go there in the first place.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I'm really on the fence with this one, for the record I am a geek, with wireless access in my residence, and would definetly use it if offered by a muncipality.
I understand how free wifi would potentially bring boom to a growing economic area, but should we all pay for it out of pocket?
Afterall, we aren't paying for the water / sewage / electricity / heat of growing businesses, why should we pay for their internet?
But then there is this... if we might be better off paying for it from a private compnay, ala verizon. That way we'll get it at a better price (no muni's are even close to efficient), and people that don't want it don't pay for it.
Muni wireless creates a monopoly that is not needed.
It looks like the telco cartel bribing^Wlobbying the Texas Senate ran out of minutes, and got disconnected before closing the deal.
--
make install -not war
The answer is no.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Where I live, I can't even get DSL! I still have a choice though - pay $42.95 a month for Comcast cable or go without internet (or leech of the neighbor's unprotected wireless network...)
802.11b is a very poor means of delivering bandwidth to anybody. Because of interference from cordless phones, even inches away from my AP, I can't get a clean connection through many times. This type of interference I've experienced on several brands of AP's with several different wifi adapters, and they all experience the problems at the same time. Attempting to make use of 2.4Ghz for utility style bandwidth deployment is a waste of government money and time, better suited to other projects.
On the other hand, I don't believe that state governments should be telling the local governments what to do like this, as it is clear that this is a move by the commercial companies to keep a niche market where they can keep money. ON the other hand, why CAN'T they make money deploying this stuff.
Now how will Southwestern Bell and Warner Cable, the beneficiaries of decades of local-government-granted monopolies and eminent domain rights, be able to compete?
WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CORPORATIONS?
And that's reasonable, because such a ban would be both positive and negative. Positive in that a local government would have been able to use taxpayers money to compete with perfectly adequate private services, but bad in that the fact is, with dumbass port blocking and ridiculous terms and conditions, and a lack of coverage in many areas, the private sector needs its backside kicked. We still lack "IP common carriers".
What was needed was not a ban but regulation. Specific circumstances in which a local authority would be allowed to enter the market. Restrictions on what it could do, with privacy only eroded to the minimum required to comply with State and Federal law) and with subsidies capped at a per-body maximum needed to be drawn up, with serious penalties for breaches. A specific minimum standard for private IP providers to supply at reasonable prices above which a local network would be deemed unnecessary, which should include an unfiltered, non-NAT, IP routing service set at a price level equal to its other popular consumer broadband offerings.
By doing this, the legislature would have let municipal broadband be a threat only to telecommunication companies unwilling to play fair and provide access. It would also have ensured that municipalities would always have an escape route against poor entrenched infrastructure companies.
This has been promoted too much in "black and white" terms (I refer to the use of that imagery to highlight absurdly contrasting views, as in "You're either for me or against me" type rationale, not the popular nick name for monochrome television), and this, perhaps, endangers the chance of the right approach being made. People often believe that compromise is a sign of weakness, and it is, but you shouldn't always mistake solutions that form a middle ground and answer everyone's concerns for compromise. Often they're the right answer nobody wants to hear.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, fortunately for Texans, the Texas legislature only meets once every two years and does so for a limited period of time. The current political climate in Austin is one of extreme acrimony after the redistricting battle in 2003 and the failure this year to come up with any school finance plan whatsoever. With fairly massive issues confronting the government, including budget problems (school finance and property taxes in particular), there is little time or patience for motions that have already failed in the past.
I'm sure the sponsor of this particular legislation will introduce it again, but since it turned out to be controversial there will probably not be serious support for it. Also, over the next two years some cities will probably see fit to experiment with municipal wi-fi, and those cities will be strongly opposed to such a move.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The gov'ment has little to no business providing services like this. Roads and light are one thing, this is another.
First comes wifi, then before you know it, your city owns a gold course. (My city OWNS a freaking golf course.)
"Public wireless is like roads and street lights."
No it's not. The argument for cities controlling roads is that it's a large resource that should be controlled by one entity for efficiency. Similar arguments are made for power and phone line. Wireless, on the other hand, lends itself well to competition. New technologies, such as WiMAX, lend themselves well to low cost competitve wireless market.
Muni wireless will kill that, and you'll be left with whatever underfunded half-assed, system your local govt decides is best for you.
Vote for Pedro
I'm quite disturbed at the number of moronic bills that have been passed just this session.
First, they banned same sex couples from adopting children -- most sinister is allowing the state to monitor the activities of foster parents to make sure they're straight.
Second, they've banned "sexy cheerleading". Yes, that right. They took time out of their legislative session to vote on a bill banning public high schools from cheers and outfits people might consider appropriate.
You can learn a lot about your own state sometime just by watching the Daily Show.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
However, 802.16 is coming and if it pans out anything like the way it could, things will get very interesting.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Thank God this bill has died but you can expect the facist telecom monopolies to continue their quest to eliminate government competition in the wireless arena and make everyone in Texas pay for their service.
Providing free wireless isn't going to suddenly make the normal ISPs go into bankruptcy. A free wireless network would be nice if you have a laptop in a park or something, but it isn't going to cut it for home use.
First of all, the security is terrible on wireless networks. I would not allow anyone in my house to connect their PC to a wireless city-wide network. You would have to lock down the PC to the point where it was barely usable anyway.
Secondly, you would still want a home network in most cases. Unless you set up a PC to act as your wireless access point, and made it into a hardcore firewall/router you wouldn't have the kind of security or network design you wanted. It wouldn't be very convenient to have all of your devices floating around in a public access WAN.
Last but not least is speed. I don't think I'll be getting the 1M download rate I currently enjoy with cable on a municiple wireless connection.
If the city is sellign this as a way for the average user to have an internet connection they are sadly mistaken. They might say it is as easy as connecting, which it is. The people that would want the simplicty of connection are the same ones that don't have a clue how to secure themselves, therefore they would be worse off in the end.
/. ++
No wonder we are no longer competitive as a nation and studies are suggesting that if the trend continues, up to one-half of the USA will be "foreign" owned in 25 years!
The savemuniwireless mailing list kept us all informed of what politicians to email at what times.
I emailed those politicians told them I was going to work for/donate to their opponents when they came up for reelection, if they voted for HB 789.
Now we need to target Phil King, of Weatherford. He is the slimy corporate whore who sponsored hb 789.
We should probably raise money to run ads informing his district constitutents about how he sold out to SBC, et al as a corporate whore.
Here is the url to the Weatherford Democrat, the newspaper for the biggest city in his district.
I say we make an example of this whore Phil King by raising money over the Net to defeat him when he runs for reelection/office again. He will serve as an example for the other corporate whores. With the internet we can focus all our whore-hating dollars on some whore like King.
This guy is just a texas state govt representative. It is not all that big an office. We do not need to raise all that much money or have all that huge an effort in order to make an example of him by kicking him out of office.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Other theater greats , , , , ...Ill get my coat
IPoultergeist
The Texas WIFI masacre
Scream if you know what i did last legislative session
The Taking of the Pelham 127.0.0.1
WIFIeld of dreams
The adventures of Baring Von Municpalinhausen
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Whenever legislators push so hard to keep money out of the public sector, I always suspect that there is a strong private-sector influence upon them. No one stands to gain much financially if local governments launch Wifi networks (i.e. no profit-sharing). But if a corporation does it, many stand to gain including stock-holders (who may also happen to be Texas legislators).
They'll be back.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Let's say they maintain administration of it, because it is "theirs". Do you really like the idea of the same ISP that you are using also paying the Chief of Police? Wouldn't that lead to a terrific conflict of interest sometimes?
How could there be multiple providers? There really isn't much room for effective sharing of physical space by competing 802.11 transceivers. While it probably wouldn't push Starbucks off the air, you certainly would not have Verizon buying pole space to have their transceiver next to the municpal one - this would be an enforced monopoly because the frequencies are a finite resource. So much for "competition." As for keeping the major providers out of it, whom exactly do you think is going to get the contract to provide the service, anyway?
All of this is just a fun way to take your money for a service that you probably won't get to use - because it will service the downtown area. So unless you live and/or work there, you just get to pay for it in your taxes. Think they are going to tax the downtown people extra to pay for it and not everyone else? Come on, you did think that, didn't you?
The savemuniwireless mailing list kept us all informed of what politicians to email at what times.
I emailed those politicians told them I was going to work for/donate to their opponents when they came up for reelection, if they voted for HB 789.
Now we need to target Phil King, of Weatherford. He is the slimy corporate whore who sponsored hb 789.
We should probably raise money to run ads informing his district constitutents about how he sold out to SBC, et al as a corporate whore.
Here is the url to the Weatherford Democrat, the newspaper for the biggest city in his district.
I say we make an example of this whore Phil King by raising money over the Net to defeat him when he runs for reelection/office again. He will serve as an example for the other corporate whores. With the internet we can focus all our whore-hating dollars on some whore like King.
This guy is just a texas state govt representative. It is not all that big an office. We do not need to raise all that much money or have all that huge an effort in order to make an example of him by kicking him out of office.
After all, how much money could it take to run ads or classified announcemments in a small paper like the Weatherford Democrat?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Oh thank God. I was afraid Texas was going to have a hard time justifying censoring broadband.
But if it's state run, that's the perfect excuse.
Good thing, too! No, I doubt that municipalities can provide better Internet than ISPs, but it should not be ISPs, iLECs, or anyone else who determines what works in this area. I read somewhere that it costs less to install a wireless network in a City, than it does to supply trashbags. Verizon needs to be stopped.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
So we have muni wireless. What happens? The govt. subcontracts the job out to someone like Verizon, who now has a monopoly on wireless in your area. And wireless is a technology that allows for competition among multiple telcom companies. Great idea, idiots. Lets create an artificial monopoly just so I don't have to pay for wireless access (oh wait I do through taxes).
Vote for Pedro
I know, it's a hard concept to grasp, that "respect" thingy... But try it, it's fun, and it has its rewards.
Sorry if I'm sounding bitter, but damn...
"But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?"
The government is an instruemnt of the people.
Corporations are allowed to exist not because of natural law, but because "The People" via the government have decided that society is better off with corporations than without.
If "The People" decide they believe society is not better off, then it is within their authority to limit or change that behavior.
There is no right for corporations to exist.
Now is the time to get with your local governments and start building muni wifi networks, even if it's just a single hotspot fed by a DSL connection. The Texas legislature only meets every other year. Two years should be enough to get local laws passed and funding procured.
Why is this important? Even the most draconian ban (that could pass both houses) would have to grandfather in existing networks.
It's time to get cracking.
Well dip me in honey, and throw me in an ant hill.
If them thar Texans didn't stumble right upon
a hill'ov good luck and common sense! Tarnation!
Generally speaking, private companies can be just as corrupt and inefficient as governments. (That's because there's never a shortage of corrupt and inefficient people.) It's just that these qualities tend to manifest themselves differently in companies and governments.
"Graft & Bungling"... damn. Try saying that out-loud several times in a row - just gets funnier every time. Kind of sounds like it could be the name of a legal firm.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/reports/daily/
And many more, not counting giving their own retirement funding a boost. But they DIDN'T manage to get a legal school finance system passed, as required by a federal judge. And the governor is "reluctant" to call a special session on this issue.
Now we can focus on the more important issues, like sexy cheerleading!
Yeah, you too, Comcast.
...try to get the small city of Weatherford to install muni wireless themselves. It's small enough that probably one or two APs on towers could cover most of the town. Being a "bedroom suburb" (well, almost, it's slightly far to communte) of Ft. Worth, you'd think that there would be enough internet-saavy folks living there to successfully support an installation of muni wi-fi.
I'm forced to pay for these things which I don't need. Why should I be forced to pay for poles whose only purpose is to reduce expenses to for profit corporations? Also, we should eliminate public roads, as they rob us of our rights to express ourselves and unfairly crush the competition of private roads.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I disagree with this on the basis that:
- The stuff ain't free.
- The Bill of Rights does not include a Right to Wireless Networking.
And actually, while I would agree that most roads are not toll roads, street lights certainly DO have a fee. I'm sure that the method by which you pay it varies by locality. Here in my county my water utility (why water? who knows) levies a fee of $3.50 a month. Some of you may not get this broken down like I do on my bill, but trust me, you pay for it, whether it's exposed in a fee or hidden in property taxes.I guess what I am saying is that your wish to socialize wireless networking doesn't square with my wish to not pay for you to have it. A sister comment mentioned that private comapnies can be just as inefficient as government, and that's true. However, if the sector is not regulated, and the government is not monopolizing the service of wifi in an area, the market will give the business to the best supplier, and the worst ones will go out of business. If the government does it, dissatisfied customers have nowhere to turn but their gov't representatives. If it's private sector, and some idiot's not doing their job, at least it's not (literally) an act of congress to fire them. And if the service doesn't improve, people will go elsewhere.
I agree to an extent that "if you [have the gov't] build it, they will come". But that will have unintended side-effects. As cost of doing business rises in a municipality, business will simply go elsewhere.
However, that the state would consider passing a law to enforce capitalism is just backwards. Just don't write laws! Legislators don't seem to understand that is an option. You don't have to legislate everything! Jeez! I don't want wifi welfare or wifi regulated monopolies. I want the option of placing my money where I want.
And let me toss a bone to the socialists: If the majority of a municipality voted by due process in that town (local referendum, popularly elected officials, whatever)want wifi welfare, then have that option, no matter how much I personally dislike it. The state just doesn't need to concern itself with such matters.
Next thing you know, a Texas senator is going to introduce wifi legislation at the Federal level. There goes the neighborhood. :(
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try replacing 'internet' in your statement with 'post office' and see how absurd it is. Providing public access to the internet is NOT the same as controlling internet access. People are free to get their internet connection from a private enterprise, and if the government begins instituting draconian laws governing the use of public internet access, they will.
Yeah, apparently I missed the part where it passed one house and died in the other.
I'm new to Texas so thanks for letting me in on the joke.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The market rewards value added. Simply whining because you now can't do a Wal-Mart* to a commodity product is not adding value.
.
* Meaning trade on low price/low quality.
Yeah, right.
Spoken like a true zealot... never-the-less, I shall try.
1. The bill would have PREVENTED local government from offering these services. The fact that it failed to pass is , in no way shape fashion or form, a mandate that local governments SHOULD provide it.
2. In the current system, a voter referendum is still required for any city to proceed. Remind me again how we've extended the power of government beyond previous limits?
3. Most muni broadband/wireless projects are funded via bond-issue, open access fees and user subscription fees. Relatively few of them rely on tax dollars to build or maintain the system. Those that are funded by tax dollars almost universially are required (by law) to get voter approval before work can even begin. You do vote, right? You know, that thing we do to determine who governs us, and what they are allowed to do?
4. This is not an issue of 'The Government' trying to trample the rights of 'The Individual' or 'Free Enterprise'. It is an issue of preventing 'Big Government' (state) from preventing 'Little Government' (local) government trying to spur economic development (which is in its own interest as well) by providing services that provide value to citizens and businesses, but aren't lucrative enough to interest private enterprise (in this case, limited monopolies... I notice you didnt scream too much about them manipulating the individual by creating artifical scarcity/demand).
5. Take off your tinfoil hat and realize that not all aspects of government are bad or irrational. It is true that our form of government is subject the excesses of it's representatives, but it will also adjust itself (given the opportunity and an interested populace) - which is better than most.
This was an arbitrary law limiting municipal governments' ability to provide an important service in an underserved area. It takes nothing away from constituents except for their right to decide how their corner of the world is governed. It EXPANDED the grasp of government, instead of narrowing it. It artifically limited the rights of the local populace to choose their relationship to their government at the bequest of major commercial interests.
6. Before posting on an issue you obviously know nothing about, take an hour to familiarize yourself with it JUST A BIT. Like most things in life/government there is typically a great deal more involved than is immediately apparent, and releveant to your personal agenda. I li ve in texas, and I know what this law meant, and you'll forgive me if I prefer to be able to choose for myself what I allow my local government to do with my own vote!
This kind of muni activism should not be encouraged. These kind of public service will never fully be able to service the needs of the general public. Look around the world - most of the public (govt) enterprises have not succeeded. This might look good at start - but when the annual budget hits the roof - there might be some serious consequences. Capitalism and free markets should guide the city wide wireless service.
Hopefully the Texas law will benefit small towns and quasi-rural areas that are traditionally un- or underserved by the "big boys", where in some cases, a communal, volunteer effort could bring real progress.
Income tax School tax Sales tax Fire protection tax Township road tax Right to work tax Now a "wireless" tax??? Keep government out of my pockets and out of my life
When you're hammered everything looks like it needs nailed....
I've read that most municipal Internet offerings are made in towns that are so small/remote that they don't have decent Internet service (or that it's so expensive that few residents can afford it). Comcast doesn't plan to provide service to these areas any time soon because there's not enough money to justify setting up shop there. Yet Comcast still gets their panties in a bunch when local governments try to provide it. This law isn't protecting free market, it is denying this service to these areas.
The way I see it, as long as the residents using the service have to pay for it (as opposed to taxing everyone for it regardless of whether they use it), it should be ok. It keeps companies like Comcast from price gouging, but it still allows them to provide better and/or cheaper service if they can manage it. If they can't, then they don't deserve my business.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this means is that municipalities are not PROHIBITED from setting up wireless networks?
That means that, if you don't like the idea of a municipal wifi network in your area, you can STILL fight it via political activism in your local government?
I've seen a number of arguments in this thread about why muni-wifis are a bad idea (inefficiency, discourage competition, not an essential function of government, not a "need" of all citizens, etc), but I haven't read any actual advocacy for a state-wide ban prohibiting munipilatities from deciding for themselves whether to offer wi-fi or not... So, much of the "hubub" here seems misplaced.
It's not a stretch at all.
the analogy made perfect sense. The argument was that why should wireless be offered by a municipality for essentially free when private companies can offer it at a cost to the consumer. The analogy made perfect sense.
Example, a book store vs a library. The municipality offers a library for essentially free (taxes and card membership) and the bookstore is private and charges what it sees fit to the consumer. Both entities provide the same service, a place to acquire books.
Both offer a different level of service. Both can co-exist. It would be asinine to say we can only have bookstores and not libraries.
In the same vain, it's asinine to say municipalities can not offer wireless service. Number a private company will implement it for the municipilaty much in the way like private companies provide, manage, a cities water, number two there is nothing preventing a private company from setting up their own wireless network.
So, in short, the guys analogy made perfect sense, and it would be crazy to think that private companies should be allowed to dictate who can compete with them.
Texas is in the middle of a school funding crisis, and in July the courts will likely order drastic changes unless the Governor calls a special session.
Special sessions are supposed to address only the issue they are called for, but lobbying interests - read SBC - will no doubt find a way to get their favorite legislation passed. With only 30 days in each special session pro-freedom groups will have to lobby both the legislature and the governor ahead of time if they want to block such legislation.
If the bloggers are to damaging to your cause just site Campaign finance and shut down all dns to the offending sites based on Campaign law. Great deal for incumbants
Look around the world - most of the public (govt) enterprises have not succeeded.
Well, you don't have to look all the way around the world - Here's some stuff from Canada:
Hydro (Electricity) - cheapest rates in world
Car Insurance - (BC third cheapest in NA)
Heath Care - Cheaper per person than US, better coverage of population (problems notwithstanding)
Education - post secondary tuition Much Cheaper than US -> take it a step further, college in most euro countries is effectivley "free"
Day Care - Province of Quebec offers universal day care for $7 a day
There are pros and cons with both styles, but to say that gov't run programs have failed is ludicrous.
Uh, because they can do it better?
Consider, if the town doesn't provide competative service then no one will use it. Just because the Telco's exercise monopoly or near monopoly control over local telephone service does not entitle them to a monopoly over broadband as well.
In fact, the Telcos aren't providing adequate broadband service now, because if the were the municiple option wouldn't even be under consideration. That should be self-evident to everyone.
Plus, this is an issue of local control. Citizens have the greatest amount of control over their smallest, most local, entities -- in this case towns. I would expect that only towns that want their local government to provide broadband will actually go ahead and do so.
And this is the way it should be.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Of course it does. Right next to "filibuster". Everyone knows that word is in the Constitution. Find one and you'll find them both.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Open source movement has been called comunist, so I guess those free wireless poping up everywhere might be soon called comunists too...
.... Now that I think about it: IT COULD HAPPEN!!!
Hmm soon I guess service companies would want to charge for the air we breathe. they would say something like, if you want fresh air and want those plants next to your house closed, you should pay us monthly this fee:
ok, I don't live in the US and don't know what speeds you get, but I can say that I would still pay a monthly fee (which would probably go down) for a fatter cable going to my house with wires and all instead of using municipal wifi. you may say that not everyone uses internet, but maybe more people will if all it costs is a wifi adapter, and thats a good thing i think.
Government always functions best at the lowest levels, because that's where politicians have the most accountability and direct contact with their constituents. Having the state make decisions for municipalities is a mistake, just like having the federal government make decisions for the states is undemocratic. Higher levels of government are at best a necessary evil, and they need to be stopped from needlessly interfering with the lower levels.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the current system, a voter referendum is still required for any city to proceed. Remind me again how we've extended the power of government beyond previous limits?
Another zealot chiming in here. What limit do you recognize to your neighbor's power to vote himself into your wallet? If 50% + 1 neighbor votes that you have to buy them go-carts and HBO, is that exceeding their previous limits? Do Majoritarians recognize any moral limits, or is the definition of moral 50% + 1 of the voters?
their stupidity.
I hate these lobbyists & bought-n-paid-for politicians trying to block the public (ah hem, who does the government work for again?) from doing what the public wants to do with the publically-owned assets.
3. Most muni broadband/wireless projects are funded via bond-issue, open access fees and user subscription fees. Relatively few of them rely on tax dollars to build or maintain the system.
With what funds does the government pay off those bonds? Are those "open access fees" voluntary or required? Must citizens without computers pay for "open access fees"? Does Grandma with her iMac pay the same fees as Joe Napster or Joe BitTorrent?
"Free" government services are not free.
cpeterso
The lesson is : Never try.
Free wireless access is absolutely un-American and the bill in question is absolutely on the right track. What good is information, after all, if someone isn't profiting from access to it? Might as well let people borrow newly published books for free from a public institution, or get their education for free! What are these liberals thinking?
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
My God this was a ridiculous waste of time and almost as stupid a bill as "High School Cheerleading Decency Act" which I might add, actually passed. I mean for Christ's sake, our Texas legislature only meets 6 months out of every two years to begin with and this is a really good sample of the stupid nonsense the people of this state have to put up with. However, we did seem to completely drop the ball anything resembling education reform. But we can be reassured that while our young people won't see any better quality of education out of this congressional session at the very least our young cheerleaders will be spared a future of becoming a harlot due to improper dance moves, thank God for the strong state wide stand cheerleading decency!
ARGH!!!!!!!!
So, once again important issues facing the state's citizenry have been brushed aside in an effort to stroke the moral pride of the stupid and useless but highly vocal right wing of my beloved Republican party. God it makes me proud to be a minority with a the majority. Gah! I assume a special session will now be called again by our Governor. Maybe this time something will get done and the Democrats in congress won't feel the need to flee the state in order to prevent a vote. I mean it is really embarrassing when the Governor of your state threatens to have a warrant issued for the Democrat members of the state congress in order to have Texas State Troopers bring congressmen and congresswomen back to the state so that voting can occur.
Sometimes I wonder how in the heck with anything gets done in Texas when my state's politics are so completely out of control.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
If Americans are so stupid, how does the United States:
a) Have the fastest rate of economic growth among major industrialized nations.
b) Have the world's most powerful military.
c) Have one of the world's largest manufacturing economies at over 1.5 trillion a year.
d) Have a lead or compete globally in aerospace, pharmaceuticals, chemistry, entertainment, cars, and, thanks to Microsoft X-Box, consumer electronics.
e) To this day only the United States has put a man on the moon.
Isn't the unemployment rate in France and Germany hovering at near 10%, with the unemployment rate for the under 25 sector actually riding significantly higher? Meanwhile, the United States is on track to pass Europe in absolute GDP by 2010.
This is my sig.
My question is: why meddle in the affairs of groups of people with needless regulation hampering their ability to self-organise? This is probably the worst case of over-regulation, and I might have guessed that such an egregious example would come from America, where apparently the tail now wags the dog.
It's funny how coporations can at the same time be pro-regulation and anti-regulation: they like needless regulations when it means they maintain their monopolies, but they rail against it when regulations attempt to introduce market fairness.
Oh, wait, I forgot: a corporation doesn't have to rational, since it's not a person (though not that people do either).
Leo
But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?
Who says government is squashing private business? Just because a local government provides wireless access it doesn't mean business can't. If the public access is basic then a business can distinguish itself by adding value to it's offerings like more responsive tech support and faster access, hosting, and/or web design. Maybe the locals can even outsource the service to a business. Now I'd disagree if businesses were prevented from offering service, but just because cities are offering service doesn't mean they're shutting out others from trying.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sounds like you're arguing for the rights of a minority party to fight against the tyranny of the majority.
Pray tell, what do you think about judicial filibusters?
When you locate a corporate library that would be put out of business by socialization, let me know.
You wouldn't expect to find any if the existence of public libraries makes them unviable.
You want to tell Benjamin Franklin he shouldn't of started a public library? As a printer he and other printers in the Leather Apron Club started a public library.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ah, now here's a book that should be required reading in high school if not jr high, Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations". Another good one to read also is Natural Capitalism-Creating the Next Industrial Revolution by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L Hunter Lovins.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Every municipality who desires to deploy public wi-fi must buy their Internet feed from somebody.
In Texas, the historical source for cities to get their T-1 formerly was "THEnet" (Texas Higher Education Network). The "THEnet" has a policy forbidding cities from redistributing their feed to the public.
Nowadays, cities in Texas usually buy their Internet T-1 from SBC, since they're on the state contract. SBC will simply forbid wi-fi redistribution to the public in their new contract.
The other source becoming more popular with Texas municipal govts to get a broadband Internet feed is now via cablemodem. Both RoadRunner and Comcast are big in Texas cities, and soon will be amending their terms of service agreements to forbid redistributing wireless to the public.
I am the network admin for a small city govt in Texas who recently considered providing muni wi-fi, but decided against it when the evil bill reared its head this year. We will likely never consider doing it now. RoadRunner is our cable franshise and given that they wouldn't even agree to allow the City to run it's own DNS server when we considered switching our T-1 over to a RoadRunner 4Mbps feed, I can only imagine how their service contracts will soon read for city govts in Texas now. BTW, we're currently using an SBC-provided T-1 line for the city govt Internet feed, and I'll bet that when that contract for that is up for renewal later this year, that it will contain a clause explicitly prohibiting us from providing public wi-fi with it.
I wonder if this has anything to do with him sponcering that bill. PETE SESSIONS (R-TX) Top Contributors 3 SBC Communications $23,750
Who comes up with these brilliant ideas?
My cabin doesn't have *any* kind of high-speed internet, despite being on a hill loaded with $250,000 houses (expensive for Fairbanks). Obviously the private sector has completely failed me and other folks on the DSL wait list.
If municipalities want to become involved in supplying and/or mandating local internet service, fine by me. It's one step down from water and power in importance nowadays.
This government activity more than bypasses my "libertarian" filter.
In Minnesota, if you turn into an alcoholic, can you sue the city for selling you an addictive and harmful drug? Are the cities going to start running crack houses next?
check out how your Senator and Rep voted on HB 789 and be guided accordingly when they are up for re-election.
We lucked out on this one.
Having followed this bill and made more than a few phone calls there are, in my opinion, more than a few elected representatives who should be retired by the voters at the earliest opportunity as they have displayed a complete lack of (good) judgment which is the basis upon which we entrust them to work for us in the Lege.
A "throw the bums out" election is in order.
I can tell you that several of them (especially Rep King, the author of the bill, whose primary contributors were SBC and ATT and...) is not one I would turn my back on.
If the government won't, then the private sectors do need to take care of it, and WILL, if given the chance.
Private sectors will only provide a service if they think they can profit from it. I have read news articles wherein local governments have been setting up broadband access in their areas because private businesses won't, they perceive that there isn't enough of a market to offer the service.
More Broadband Coming To The NEK
...
Large Internet providers such as Verizon have little interest in low-density communities, said Jack Hoffman, executive director of the Vermont Broadband Council. He said it's been the same with cable television and telephone companies.
Providing rural high-speed has been left to smaller businesses like Cloud Alliance and costs for initial infrastructure are prohibitive, Marsh said...
FalconShould there be a Law?
An 'open access fee' is the charge to another service provider to use the infrastructure created by the municipality. The term comes from CLEC providers like Birch telecom that exist and bill and service independently from the 'baby bells', but never the less lease all of their capacity from them. Not all munis have Open Access policies, but most do, and it is a legal requirement in a number of states.
Open access fees in this case would be charges to Comcast/Verizon/Joe Startup to offer competing (or non-competing) services on/over a muni network. Generally, open access fees are set at such a level that allows other parties to move into the area and be competetive without the initial capital investment of cable plant and switch housing, or the maintenance and upgrade expenses (the biggest barriers in underserved areas). Once the infrastructure exists, other providers are then able to sign open access contracts, and bring more feature rich products to the community, while lightening the burden of support on the broadband host and creating a less volatile revenue stream.
As for how the bonds are paid, they are typically published with the expectation that the access fees and subscriber fees will generate enough revenue to make the project self sustaining and pay the bonds back over the 20 - 30 year life. In the uncommon (but by no means unheard of) case that the muni was so badly botched that it cannot sustain itself, then the plant and infrastructure is typically sold to one of the major players to ameliorate the debt. The expectation on _any_ bond issue is that the improvement will increase income sufficiently to cover the expense of repaying the bond over the course of its life. Bond issues also have to be approved by voters in the tax district, so that method of financing places no burden on tax payers without voter consent.
In cases where the intent is to provide free blanket wireless access in a district (as in Austin) then the issue is put to a referendum. You, the tax payer, have the right to vote against such a use of your tax dollars, and the inevitable right to move out of the tax district if the vote comes out against you.
In that case, the goal is to provide a service that will lead to future economic development. The thinking is that ubiquitous wireless will draw young, tech savvy workers and executives and encourage new and existing businesses to set up shop in an exciting and tech friendly city. It's possible that they will be wrong, and that this will become a millstone... however, it has worked elsewhere (Seattle), and was found by local voters to be a viable experiment. The law in question would have allowed state government (which provided 0 funding for the project) to prevent the project from going forward for no binding reason.
Again, we come back to my main point. The original poster blasted the failing of this law as a victory for socialism, when it was, in fact, a victory for self determination. Every muni setup is a little different, every one financed a little differently, and like any business venture, every one carries the risk of financial failure. The crux of this bill was whether or not the people who were impacted got to decide whether it was a good risk for their community.
While I agree that, in general, the free market will provide better/faster/more services where there is economic incentive, I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that a city should not be PERMITTED to provide such services if no private channel can be found to provide them, and the means to fund them approved by the constituents.
What gives them the right? Lil' thing called "free market". But I don't think many Slashdotters actually want a free market in any sector.
While there may be some like this, there are others who very much believe in a free market. Unfortunately about the only true free market is in the underground economy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
IF??? Lessee...Airline bailouts, Chrysler bailout, Halliburton, petroleum, farmers, IP law, corporate welfare in the form of low or no taxes, or outright subsidies... War is a pretty good way to guarantee profits...need I go on? At least Europe is a bit more open about it. The Americans are trying to doing behind everybody's back.
That's the corporate aristocracy for you.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Government in America sucks because Americans are stupid. Even when good people go into public service they're not rewarded to anywhere near a level as compared with those who go corporate. Hell, our PRESIDENT doesn't get paid much more than your average CEO. And we get what we pay for.
I don't know about what it is for presidents other than Secret Service body guards for life, but congresscritters get free healthcare while in office and if they serve 10 years healthcare is for life. They also get terrific retire benefits
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Reason" magazine has a good article on "How Schools Cheat" in the June 2005 issue. It goes into detail as to how schools are failing in part because of "No Child Left Behind". Unfortuately I didn't find the article online, but it lists various methods by which schools use to say the schools are doing better than they really are. Personally I also blame parents, not all mind you but many, they don't spend the tyme helping their children and being active with schools.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Then why are we using so many mercenaries in Iraq? Especially when Army troops are much, much cheaper?
Because Blackwater USA has former military and intelligence personel on it's board. Many of it's trainers, the military uses them for training the military too, are former SEALs or Special Forces and they make a lot of money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No they don't. Society has no direct obligation to provide a "fair" business environment for anyone.
If private enterprise can't provide desired services at a value level desired by the members of a society, then they don't have the "right", moral or otherwise, to force society to subsidize their inadequacy.
Privatge enterprises don't have the right to be subsidized but they do have the right to try to make a profit.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm glad this law didn't pass, I think it's good for municipalities to be able to provide their own WiFi if they decide it should be a public good.
It's interesting how prices vary so much for WiFi access. I'm sitting in a cafe right now that has free WiFi access, so evidently they're able to provide the service at so little cost to them that the benefit of extra customers makes it worthwhile. But sometimes I go to Starbucks, where they chage $10 a day or $30 a month for WiFi through T-Mobile. Also I travel a bit, and find it odd that the Albuquerque, NM airport (where I live) has free WiFi, but most other airports charge $10 for a short session while you're passing through the termial. Why/how the big discrepency?
My guess is that a lot of businesses are looking at charging for WiFi as a huge cash cow - it costs almost nothing to provide - just buy a few WiFi routers and pay for one internet connection - and they can charge big bucks for it. Private companies make exclusive deals with airports (usually government-run entities) to rule out any competition, and then they jointly soak the customers. Starbucks figures if you're dumb enough to pay $5 for coffee, then you're dumb enough to pay $10 for WiFi.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
Government should never compete with private businesses to provide necessary services if at all possible.
So all roads should be privatized? And the military along with law enforcement, and the courts?
FalconShould there be a Law?
So what your saying is that it's not OK for the majority to decide what to do with your money but it IS OK for the majority to tell gays that they are sub-human and don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals?
Where did this come from? I have yet to read anything about whether or not homosexuals can or can't marry, that is not until this one. But since it's been brought up I'll state my positions on both. I am all for communities installing their own broadband access, though I am against taxpayer dollars paying for it, especially for one who isn't going to use it. As for homosexual marriage, I see no reason to deny anyone their liberty when they aren't harming another. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't harm another so they should be allowed to marry.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wireless internet was invented because it was necessary. Just like electricity. Or are you just mad because it's not necessary for you??...at this time?
Wireless just like electricity IS NOT a neccessity, it is a desire. If it were then we wouldn't be here because it didn't exist before. I have yet to meet anybody who would die because they didn't have wireless. But even life isn't neccessary.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If a corporation can't turn a profit providing service to your area, what makes you think that the governmnet can provide it at a reasonable cost?
I followed you 'til I got here. Whereas business's primary concern is making a profit government isn't or shouldn't be concerned about making profit as well. Having said that I don't believe taxpayers should be forced to pay for a service they may not want such as wireless broadband.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!
"Oh Yeah!"
Counter-terrorists win!
Good job!
[o]_O
When a muni provides wireless communication, as long as they fund it entirely out of the revenue generated by the service, then you're right. It's fair competition. But as soon as taxes are used to fund the muni wireless network, then that's the government squashing private business. Why? Because everyone is forced to pay for the service (through taxes) whether they want it or not. Private business does not have the ability to force a service on a user community like the municiple government does.
Never mind wireless, wire broadband isn't offered everywhere and if a muni desides to provide such a service there then it isn't squashing private businessee, instead they are providing a service businesses won't. There is a difference. I am all for munis providing said service as long as it's not on the taxpayers' bill, that it's paid for with user fees. Heck they can even contract a private business to set it up and/or run it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, you're saying that once the broadband network is built, the 25% that voted against it will never be using it?
There very well could be some though maybe not the full 25% who won't use wired never mind wireless broadband. Most people don't even have a computer, some because they can't afford one while others don't want one. I knew some who refused to use a computer, even just for word processing. One I knew loved his manual typewriter and wouldn't use anything else. I was puzzled by this because they're so much more useful, you don't have to start all over or use whiteout when you make a mistake but he didn't want anything to do with computers. Others like my mom hate them, she uses them at work but when she leaves she doesn't want to look at one.
FalconShould there be a Law?
In both of those cases, if having the money is more important to you, you can choose not to pay for cable and phone service.
But you can't rip the cables off your property, the government monopoly has used eminent domain to give said companies the right to use your land.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?"
The fact that the government was elected, and the private business was not?
The private businesses operate within the government, not the other way around (much as the situation seems to be reversed in modern-day America these days).
+++ATH0
It saddens me to see that everyone must take on such a polarized view of such things as municipal wireless projects, etc.
:)
Perhaps we could look at this a different way?:
* Secondary / Auxilary / backup internet access (granted this point is slightly mooted because corporations were allowed to layout where the fiber runs between cities, most places only having one local loop, etc. I know that I would sure like a backup internet connection--maybe we need burstable packet radio between these municipal wireless city projects or something?
* Faster internet access for people that can't regularly afford broadband. Yes, these people are out there--they don't prioritize internet access as something they are willing to pay much if at all for and let us face it, dialup is rather antiquated.
Also, although broadband is available in many rural areas, the universal service fund that we all contribute to when we pay our cell/phone bills, still isn't living up to the expectations and/or rollout of broadband that it was supposed to provide to rural areas--dialup doesn't cut it.
We definately do not need any more regulation of pretty much anything in the states.
"Can't we all just get along? Sitting around campfires, singing Kumbaya?"
Yet again, my two cents (that are getting inflated by the minute.)
3t3rn4l
Argh and Ahoy! Give me a freaking beer again already, Matey!
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. (When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will
Do you mean public as in you don't need to be a member and that the gerneral public could use it, or public as in the public is forced to pay taxes for it.
Hope this answers your question:
A Brief History of the Library Company of Philadelphia
On July 1, 1731, Benjamin Franklin and a number of his fellow members of the Junto drew up "Articles of Agreement" to found a library. The Junto was a discussion group of young men seeking social, economic, intellectual, and political advancement. When they foundered on a point of fact, they needed a printed authority to settle the divergence of opinion. In colonial Pennsylvania at the time there were not many books. Standard English reference works were expensive and difficult to obtain. Franklin and his friends were mostly mechanics of moderate means. None alone could have afforded a representative library, nor, indeed, many imported books. By pooling their resources in pragmatic Franklinian fashion, they could. The contribution of each created the book capital of all.
Fifty subscribers invested forty shillings each and promised to pay ten shillings a year thereafter to buy books and maintain a shareholder's library. Thus "the Mother of all American Subscription Libraries" was established. A seal was decided upon with the device: "Two Books open, Each encompass'd with Glory, or Beams of Light, between which water streaming from above into an Urn below, thence issues at many Vents into lesser Urns, and Motto, circumscribing the whole, Communiter Bona profundere Deum est." This translates freely: "To pour forth benefits for the common good is divine." The silversmith Philip Syng engraved the seal. The first list of desiderata to stock the shelves was sent to London on March 31, 1732, and by autumn that order, less a few books found to be unobtainable, arrived. James Logan, "the best Judge of Books in these parts," had assisted in the choice, and it was a representative one.
From the history provided by the library it was supported by subscribers and gifts not taxes, er at least when I searched for "tax" I didn't find it though I admit I only read the two paragraphs I included here and used the search function which for some reason doesn't work properly. I also should say that this history is different than what I first said, which I got from another webpage.
To tell the truth though even if a libray is supported by taxes I don't think it hurts publishers at all, instead my perspective is that libraries increase revenue for both publishers and retailers, like vcrs did for movies studios. Also I know it's only ancedotal, but it's been my experience that libraries increase sales of books. Growing up my mom took me to the public library every week or two and I'd check out a number of books, so I grew up loving to read. Then as an adult I bought and read a bunch of books, sometyme two or three a week. If I didn't like reading I wouldn't of bought most of them. Now I don't read nearly as many books as I used to I admit, most of my reading now is online and magazines. That is other than textbooks or other books I'll read for a class.
FalconShould there be a Law?