While this one bill is not necessarily the "turning point" that alarmists might play it out to be, this is indeed a very serious matter for telecommunication utilities. Let's consider the following points:
Unlicensed frequencies means a rather unobstructed process to establishing service. Roll-outs are quick, and rather difficult to challenge on a legal basis.
Antenna and router technolgy get faster/smaller/lower-power/longer range with each revision. If the municipal utilities were to use the existing telephone/power poles for distribution (or perhaps even turn those wires into antennas?), suddenly the most expensive item in the system is the labor to install it.
WiFi is two-way by design, and with smart bandwidth management, can likely give more consumer satisfaction than the currently more-capable cable. (BTW: Anyone care to duplicate that model of municipally-sanctioned local monopolies? I'm not excitied by that prospect.) It's long past telephone lines in usefulness.
And finally, IPV6. Low-power chipsets and enough addresses for every item in your house.
I think the question is not "Should this be a public-utility?", but "How can we involve private sector competition to fight/pay for access to the consumer, wherever they are?"
My personal feeling is that local municipalities should "own the road", but consumers should be free to buy their (NHTSA-approved) cars from anyone, or ride the bus, taxi, limo, bicycle, walk, or choose a toll road.
It occurs to me that this DRM excercise is an effort by the owners of the material (defined as those who've paid up-front to create the material) to assume greater control over how it is consumed. This does not suspend the laws of supply-and-demand.
I totally agree with your appeal to bring the demand-side of this media-consumption equation into line with each person's personal values. And in keeping in-line with any broader consumer movements, content owners and distributors will likely create (business-model-supported) broadly-accessible ways for the consumer to get what they (think they) want. (Immagine a greatly-expanded market in TV seasons-in-a-box DVDs.)
As one possible example, let's consider the DVD. Anyone who remembers the Digital Video Disc days knows that this has been an industry-created consumer-electronics success story, a decade in the making. Even though one can manipulate their VHS copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" to a much greater degree (including recording over the manipulations), where's the clammoring for the days of VHS movie distribution?
Let's have confidence in the (mostly theoretical "perfect") market providing the compromise that'll provide for both consumers and producers.
In the meantime, keep up the good work. Don't consume "junk" just because that's what The Man puts in front of you.
(I got rid of my TV a month ago. Aside from dog-sitting in trade for a Tivo season pass or two, I'm not really missing it.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question is not "Should this be a public-utility?", but "How can we involve private sector competition to fight/pay for access to the consumer, wherever they are?"
My personal feeling is that local municipalities should "own the road", but consumers should be free to buy their (NHTSA-approved) cars from anyone, or ride the bus, taxi, limo, bicycle, walk, or choose a toll road.
It occurs to me that this DRM excercise is an effort by the owners of the material (defined as those who've paid up-front to create the material) to assume greater control over how it is consumed. This does not suspend the laws of supply-and-demand. I totally agree with your appeal to bring the demand-side of this media-consumption equation into line with each person's personal values. And in keeping in-line with any broader consumer movements, content owners and distributors will likely create (business-model-supported) broadly-accessible ways for the consumer to get what they (think they) want. (Immagine a greatly-expanded market in TV seasons-in-a-box DVDs.) As one possible example, let's consider the DVD. Anyone who remembers the Digital Video Disc days knows that this has been an industry-created consumer-electronics success story, a decade in the making. Even though one can manipulate their VHS copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" to a much greater degree (including recording over the manipulations), where's the clammoring for the days of VHS movie distribution? Let's have confidence in the (mostly theoretical "perfect") market providing the compromise that'll provide for both consumers and producers. In the meantime, keep up the good work. Don't consume "junk" just because that's what The Man puts in front of you. (I got rid of my TV a month ago. Aside from dog-sitting in trade for a Tivo season pass or two, I'm not really missing it.)