Verizon Seeks To Nix Fee-Based Municipal Wireless Grids 286
millermp writes "It looks like Verizon has succeeded in banning municipal WiFi networks in Pennsylvania. Since Verizon is looking to broadband service to fuel its growth, it calls municipal WiFi 'unfair competition.' This bill is following similar legislation earlier this year in Utah, Louisiana, and Florida." The bill has yet to be signed by Pennsylvania's governor, and as the story says, does not ban municipal wireless per se, but would place great restrictions on how it could be funded.
More Harm (Score:5, Insightful)
If the intention is to help poor residents to gain internet access as stated, the city may just offer the service for free, and makes up the costs from potential economic growth, maybe?
Otherwise, if this service is privatized, Verizon may face even more aggressive competition from the new WiFi operator, whose interest won't not be confined to just poorer neighborhoods and less densely populated ones.
Funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfair competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
"does this help the residents of the state recieve a service they desire, without asking too much of them in tax".
Instead of:
"does this hurt a crappy regional monopoly wring more cash from customer's wallet, or does it hurt that holy quest for profit".
Then again, I'm not a politician.
How long... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not compete? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the long run, if there's competition in the market, service qualities will go up and prices will go down. A government monopoly funded by tax dollars will give government style service with no incentive to keep costs down.
This is bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians have a responsibility to the people they represent, not to making some CEO wealthy.
So, if my small town decides they want to use their collective purchase power and set up a wi-fi, then Verizon feels threatened? Unfair competition? How? Verison could lower their fee and be more competitive.
Here's what's really unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
This is too bad to see. (Score:5, Insightful)
As if we needed another example of how corporations like innovation only when they are profiting from it, and will not stand in its way only if it does not interfere with their business model. It is especially a shame to see that this is Verizon, who I almost had some respect for after they stood up for their subscribers' privacy against the RIAA.
I've seen claims that the government-offered service would be inferior and too costly. If that's the case, Verizon has nothing to worry about-people will flock to them, and the government will kill off the project for lack of interest.
On the other hand, if it is possible to set up an inexpensive, or free, wireless network, across a whole city, publicly funded or otherwise, this is an interesting idea which needs to be explored, not stifled to grant a favor to a massive corporation. If it's a bad idea, it'll die off quite nicely on its own.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
Such wi-fi networks will further connect those to the internet who cannot stand the dial-up speeds on an internet geared towards those with highspeed. There will be no such competition in any small town so don't expect to see verizon or other internet companies fighting over the few internet users in a city of 5000.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2, Insightful)
How does this equal success? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is too bad to see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fallacious. I pay for roads even if I don't drive a car, schools even if I don't have children, police officers even if I never need to be protected from a crime, and parks and open space even if I choose never to visit them. Government's job is to do things which benefit a large number of people, and yes, they do that through taxation. Because not every single person to whom a government service is available chooses to use it does not mean that that service should not be offered. This seems, however, to be a shining example of how a large-scale, citywide project could benefit a large number of people, including areas in which it might be unprofitable for a corporation to offer that service.
Re:Unfair competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except said in legislature-speak, of course.
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least this time they would be doing something that you know about, so you could guestimate about what it would cost in equipment and administration to put it all together. It's just aps and routers. Access would be open if all the residents were on it so there'd be no need for encryption any stronger than what you use with a standard ISP. You would know if and when you were getting fleeced and you could contact your politicians properly about it.
Oh wait. Your politicians don't want you to bother them if you're right. Strike everything I've said...
"Heaven forbid that you ask us, your politicians, to take on a task which we know is full well within the capabilities of individual citizens and the private industry. We wouldn't want to waste your taxpayer money by administering this service through the government. We have public health care to think about!."
comptetition isn't the word you are looking for... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are talking about areas,that mostly don't have high speed internet infrastructure. Why not? Because telecos haven't invested in poor urban neighborhoods. Why? No market.
We are talking about communities of people who already *don't pay* for internet, Verizon and most other ISPs recognize that.
I don't see how you can say there is no market for paid internet services, and then say that free interent services are competing.
One more thing, try to use your overpriced verizon wireless in a poor urban neighborhood, like those in Philadelphia, you think it will work?
I would say no. Verizon is trying to clamp down on the idea of free bandwidth. They are hiding behind the market making this a competition issue.
Free and For Sale are indeed two different things.
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
THe other problem is that this isn't just cutting into some future service that one of the telcos wants to provide -- it will cut into service that they're already providing. They have to be concerned about people dropping their DSL or Cable Modem service. Why would you pay for high-speed access when you can put up an antenna, especially when you're already paying for wifi service through your taxes?
Re:Verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)
you mean like schools? (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxing all to give to a few is not a new phenomenon, nor is it necessarily a bad thing.
Re:Fee based services (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not cost effective for Verizon, how is it cost effective for the local government?
Re:See, this is the government on the one side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that means it is subsidised by the taxpayers. And as such, it stands far more chance of being regulated. The local equivalent of the FCC might be doing the filtering.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments WORK. Over 4000 years of history laugh at you for suggesting otherwise. You think it is pure CHANCE that governments tend to get bigger? Revolution is just another form of evolution.
The question in this case is not about what is wrong with governments but where should governments spend the money they have. To me,building an infrastructure such as a completely wifi covered city, is something that has unknown future value but seems could very quickly end up benefiting a HUGE percentage of the population. But then I don't live in Philadelphia so what I like matters even less on how they spend their money.
Th problem with private networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Physical infrastructure for networks should always be publicly owned. This isn't to say that the services running on them should be publicly owned.
Eg. Roads. It is much more efficient for roads to be in the hands of a public entity that maintains them for the use of all services that run on them. In the case of roads, you can have both privately owned and publicly owned "services" running on them - for example, busses and cars can be privately owned for both personal use and to provide services such as fedex, public transport and emergency services. In the case of roads, if they were privatised, it would be extremly impractical for a competitor to start up a new road network that serviced the same area as an existing road network - apart from the cost, it would be very wasteful of resources.
Ideally, I think that TCP/IP networks should be the same as roads. The fundamental infrastructure, ie. the wires/airwaves should be in the hands of public non-profit entities, with private companies running their services on top of that, and paying a fee for usage in much the same way that you pay registration fees/fuel tax to pay for roads. Note that it is the actual transport medium I am refering to that should be in public hands - not those other neccesary components to complete the system. The roads and stoplights if you will, not the vehicles and petrol stations.
This would mean that the basic infrastructure is not monopolised by any one company, and in the case of wireless technologies, there is no wasteful competition for the limited spectrum.
The public body that maintains the network should also have a mandate to provide the network to all areas according to need, rather than profitablility, in much the same way roads are.
This is the most efficient way to get good broadband to all, and keep a healthy level of competition in the market. If the physical network is privatised, competition effectively comes to a halt.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:3, Insightful)
Daniel
What happened to innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks Republicans (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also got a ticket for crossing the median, although the car was upside down when i crossed it.
That was totaly off topic, but my point was that anyone without health insurance would be bankrupt in an accident like that. I would much rather see my taxes go to fund more public health efforts and lost cost interent than to subsidize big corporations.
Governemnt is a nessecary evil. no cou.ld never get a private compnay to build higways or any other public infastructure without the price being prohibitve for most people.
Re:They can't even provide DSL to all their custom (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:2, Insightful)
What is wrong with special interest groups demanding free access? Isn't that the point of free wifi: to help certain disenfranchised groups? Why do you assume these groups would impose their ideas on each other?
Furthermore, isn't it really up to the local people anyways and not you? If they want all sort of restrictions on their internet access, why do you care? It is their city and their wifi network, I think they should be able to do as they please.
Your entire post is based upon assumptions that lack any substance.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you don't drive on any roads, nor do you rely on any sort of fire, police, or EMS protection whatsoever. People like you should be flogged whenever you do require city or federal services for being ungrateful, short-sighted louts!
Corporatism reigns supreme in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because of the power of propagnda. They have most of America in the grip of propaganda-based belief systems. Many young males are in the grip of the free-market-as-deity belief system. Others are in the grip of country-and-constitution-worship belief system.
In the aggregate, these Americans can be manipulated by pressing the right buttons during poltical campaigns, especially primary elections. By the time the general election rolls around, both candidates are always Corporatist shills, at least in the presidential election.
Really, I have to think that it is not only profit that keeps broadband from being reasonably priced in America. It may be that there is fear among the top of the corporatist hierarchy that once a critical mass of Americans can download video quickly over the Net, alternative distribution and creation systems may open up the path for leftist counter-propaganda. I think that if most Americans could just view a good video documentary series on the history of political propaganda in America, the grip of the corporatists could be shaken.
Here is a good book on the history of political propaganda in America. [amazon.com]
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, it doesn't apply to roads, most people (though not some libertarians) agree that we should all be taxed as fairly as possible, and that the state and local governments should take care of building and maintaining roads. Roads can't be the only thing that should fall into that category, so it's only a matter of where the line is drawn.
Off topic question about gov't vs. private efforts (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations may not have your intrest in mind but at least they are an equal opportunity screw
After reading this and seeing similar comments on many different issues over the last year or so, I feel compelled to ask a question.
Let me frame this by stating that I'm Canadian and thus see nothing wrong with government taking initiative to dump money into new industries to at least start it off and have government in control of (i.e. running or heavily regulating) essential services.
The question is this... Why is it that in America, the private sector is placed on such a high pedastal?
I figure that looking to find the least common denominator of methods to provide a service or product for the population amounts to only an "equal opportunity screw" just seems totally cynical, wrong and scary to me.
I was reading someone else's take about the American mentality on health care and saw it summed up as something that individuals feel personally responsible for and would feel intruded if it became the government's domain. A friend from school was telling of a guy she dated from SC who felt that public transit was a government handout for the poor and lazy.
Is this just survival of the fittest in action? And if so, why do people let private industry run to the government for protection from such things like a community based wi-fi network? It might as well be SCO/MS/etc getting legislators to slap a tax on Linux/BSD and all OSS to 'even the playing field.'...
Hmm, this may already be the case in some states (Score:2, Insightful)
Although not tested with respect to Wi-Fi, telcos could use those laws to threaten to tie cities up in court. The mere threat of multi-year litigation may be enough to discourage cities from starting such projects, particularly if the city views it as a "nice to have" thing but not worth spending lots of money on lawyer over.
Smaller towns or those with budget problems may have no choice but to withdraw their plans in the face of a court fight.
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with the Internet. We all benefit by the Internet and what it has done to business efficiency, whether we personally have Internet access in our homes, or not.
Re:Funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Tacoma, WA, the municipality has a public power utility and it added broadband cable, over the opposition of comcast, then at&t. The private sector all the sudden started doing capital investments that they were not going to be doing otherwise.
Government not supposed to be in business is pretty simplistic. You know the constitution provides in the preamble for the general welfare. Nobody much seriously claims public stock companies consider the general welfare. Some people like to espouse the Satanist doctrine that from the private greed comes the common good, but this seems to fail often.
Re:Do you know anything about economics ? NO ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to have a dozen players in the market -- nobody would argue that the soda market isn't competitive, despite there only being a few major players, or that home improvement stores (2 major players in the US -- Home Depot and Lowes) aren't fiercely competitive.
Presuming for a second that poor people need high speed internet in the same way that they need say food or shelter (a dubious proposition at best), covering an entire city with a wifi network is a horribly expensive way of doing it -- why not just set up public terminals in libraries?
My highspeed access runs about US$ 50/month, about what a second line and dial-up service would cost. I'd love for it to be less, but it's not really that expensive, either.
Roads make sense for a government monopoly just because having multiple road networks is infeasible. But, most homes already have 3 networks connected that can carry internet (power,phone,cableTV) plus large chunks of the electromagnetic spectrum, so that's clearly feasible.
Re:Off topic question about gov't vs. private effo (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're missing a third factor. The current generation in power was raised in the belief that if the Communists did it, then America should do the opposite. Americans (in general) have an attitude that everything is black and white. Middle ground is not an option because there is no middle ground.
Verizon claiming "unfair competition" is absurd... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not it is actually a good idea for a city gov't to provide public Internet access (many pros and cons), Verizon's claim of "unfair competition" is absurd. Verizon et al has no guaranteed right to market any particular product free from overlap with any service that the government deems is in the public interest to provide as a gov't sponsored function. Will P.I.'s and security companies complain that the police force is unfair competition for its security and investigatory services ? Nope, no such right to assume a wide-open market exclusively for the commercial sector...
Re:Funding? (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. Consitution does not apply since it is not the Federal Government providing the wireless, but a municipal government.
The U.S. Consitution explicitly enumerates what the Federal Government may do (or, to be more precise, what the Legislature may legislate) (See U.S. Consitution, Article 1, Section 8 [cornell.edu]. In theory, anything not enumerated is reserved for the states. That would include providing wireless service.
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
defense
shelter
water
food
clothing
health
electricity
heating / cooling
transportation
education
There's certainly enough whining out here about defense, so I'll skip that one. Do we have the shelter issue covered? In rural PA? How about Pittsburg? Are you sure?
The real poor need a lot more before they care about WiFi. If we're interested in really helping poor people, we need to focus our resources on them, instead of on feel-good policies that only help us feel good about ourselves.
Re:Off topic question about gov't vs. private effo (Score:3, Insightful)
I, personally, worry about how effectively and economically government can run certain services. But even when it's the cheaper alternative, I'm concerned about the impact on liberty and property rights necessary to make the goverment successful in its endeavors. I think many, many goverment programs are well-intentioned and even do a great deal of good - welfare, arts support, etc - but I'd feel more comfortable if they were funded voluntarily through the generosity of a public that has cash to toss around because the goverment didn't just take 40 percent of its paycheck.
I acknowledge many, many people WOULDN'T fund those sorts of programs on their own, unfortunately. But if that's the case, how democratic is it to forcibly take those funds from them?
Re:Funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Supposed to according to whom? Libertarians?
Most economist accept that the private sector fails to provide some goods and services (merit goods and public goods). The debate is exactly what falls into those categories, and that can change over time with the market and technology.
So, from the economic standpoint, there are some areas of business the governemnt is "supposed" to be going into, where the private sector won't supply at all, enough or at the right price, or consumers won't buy despite it being in their own interest and the public good.
From the politcal side, if a government is a democracy, they were clear when they were elected they were going to get into a certain business, and they go elected, they should be getting into it. Will of the people and all that.
Blanket statements like "the government is not supposed to be going into business" don't mean a whole lot.
Re:Funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
The enumerated powers argument is a bit theoretical. I suspect you also reject the New Deal