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.
See, this is the government on the one side... (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds more like Verizon can't beat the competition with market prices, so they seek to put the competition out of business. Of course, the competition is actually the government, so Verizon is going to have a hell of a time trying to beat them.
At the Federal level, the government should be responsible for very little. Protection of citizens, regulation of interstate/international commerce/etc. But on the local level, it is nice to have the community band together to solve local problems. Go Pennsylvania!
What's worse (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the idea of a town saying we want to provide this service, and we can do it for a fraction of the cost. It reminds me of my college housing, where the collective purchase power of all the apartments was leveraged by the owner of the property to get us satelite tv for a few bucks a month, something like 80% off the normal price.
Hey where's my (Score:2, Interesting)
Verizon screws PA and yet the legislative branch is still willing to bend over backwards for them.
Re:Why not compete? (Score:5, Interesting)
The privates shouldn't have any say in what people want to do locally especially when economic growth hinges on being able to provide some sort of broadband access these days.
It's like saying to the locals "no you can't have cars because Mobile doesn't want to put in a gas station in their town."
We have no business model so we SUE! (Score:1, Interesting)
See publications by Capitalist Adam Smith.
delaying the inevitable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Justification to not compete (Score:4, Interesting)
Combine this with the fact that with a government group running it you will run afoul of all sorts of special groups demanding free access let alone those imposing their views on what is and what is not acceptable.
Don't think so, its not hard to shop for courts that favor one view or another.
Think about it, the first whine will be "Its for the children", then comes "they are a disenfranchised group", followed by "well of course group X should get a free ride". Until you finally have yet another government program sucking dollars out of your pocket to buy votes.
Corporations may not have your intrest in mind but at least they are an equal opportunity screw. I don't need another "airport" - as in - lets stick all of our cronies into that service to draw fat checks and provide no work other than being a crony.
This is going to get me lynched (Score:2, Interesting)
I realise that this is probably going to get me beaten up, but why the hell is the city government planning on offering this service anyway? Surely the provision of broadband internet services for a fee is a job for a private company, not a job for the government.
That's not how you create competition (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I like the fact that in my small town in Virginia, I am able to go into many of the new stores and get either free wireless or very, very low cost wireless. As efficient as our state government is, I wouldn't trust the government for my internet access.
A better solution would be to encourage businesses to provide free wireless connectivity to their customers in exchange for lower or non-existant taxes. Not only do you get cheaper WiFi, but you also get a healthier local economy.
Re:Why not compete? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just looking forward to the day when connecting to the internet means putting an advanced wifi antenna (if they can ever beat the routing problems) on your roof and using an ad-lib connection which uses other peoples antenas to span the distances, and forgo the monthly cost all together. A one time purchase of hardware to create a network that is self expanding and self upgrading.
Re:I would think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, that kind of talk doesn't let politicians buy votes.
Re:Verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not compete? (Score:1, Interesting)
If it's not cost effective for Verizon, how is it cost effective for the local government?
Maybe it's not cost effective from a profit standpoint, but profit is not the reason the government wants to do this. Some things are not profitable but need to be done, like highway maintenance and preventing pollution.
Though, it might be more cost effective to distribute the cost to everyone?
Re:More Harm (Score:2, Interesting)
They didn't get cable until almost 1990 and they prevented RCN [rcn.com] from laying wire so as to protect comcast, ultimately bankrupting RCN.
The democrats that run Philly are looking for kickbacks and concessions. That's all this is about. It has nothing to do with 'poor residents', despite the rhetoric.
If they could pick up trash, I would be a little more accomodating, but they suck.
Verizon just doesn't want to compete against the people who a.) write the laws and b.) underwrite their growth. There was an article about a neighborhood (Ruby Ranch) that 'rolled their own' ISP and it showed how the telecoms fought them tooth and nail.
There is no altruism here.
plan killed here in Illinois (Score:4, Interesting)
Penn Residents Are Silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you not the state that levied a tax and paid Verizon 58 Billion dollars for a all fiber optic network and there is not one mile of fiber to anyone's homes in the state.
Now the come with your money and bitch that it would be unfair becuase cities that know they were ripped off were now forced to make their own provisions to provide network access to the general public.
That's okay your 58 billion went to installing the Fiber in my neighborhood in Texas and other neighborhoods in Florida, Ny, California. We were never taxed at all for it.
Next thing we'll see up there are toll roads that pay for road construction in other states.
Sheesh
Re:Off topic question about gov't vs. private effo (Score:3, Interesting)
There are really two factors that help explain this phenomenon. One is the 'Horatio Alger Myth' which posits that in America anyone can strike it rich if they combine a strong work ethic with a frugal lifestyle. This demonstrably false belief permeates our society, and gives rise to a school of thought where wealth is equal to morality (If you're rich you must have worked hard and spent your money wisely)
The second factor is that lobbyists are fantastically powerful here, pulling more weight with politicians than voters tend to.
So you have a society that by-and-large venerates wealth and the ability to generate it, coupled with a system that allows wealthy individuals to directly influence local and national politics.
Re:Do you know anything about economics ? NO ..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Verizon is AFFRAID! (Score:2, Interesting)
Broadband... woo--fuckin--hoo, technology sharing spectrum.
I'll stick with my 1.5Mb Up 7Mb Down that I can pull 24x7 (and have pulled for over 24x3!)...
Re:Willing to pay for competition? (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon invested a lot in cables, and have been overtaken by technology. Too fucking bad for them, that is the risk of doing business, they should have kep thteir eyes open and offer what their customers wanted.
When the government jumps in to bar competition to a company while that company simply failed to adapt, that government helps in the creation of a monopoly and a bad one for that.
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not on to anything new here. This is the oldest line in the book of government (how to rule a people): tell them it's for "society as a whole".
The war on Iraq and its tens of thousands of civilian deaths benefits "society as a whole", right? Bush's religious charity program benefits society as a whole, right? Social security benefits society as a whole, right?
When the Romans set out to conquor the world, by murdering those who didn't accept their rule, they did it for the benefit of "society as a whole".
Why not just say the hell with freedom and go communist? We're halfway there already. (A typical US citizen pays nearly 50% of his yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes and fees combined.)
Admit it: You have a special interest, which you consider so righteous it must be forced upon people whether they want it or not.