Free Wi-Fi Threatened? 586
jasonmicron writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting that if certain state officials have their way, cities in the state of Texas will no longer be able to offer free WiFi to their citizens. This could set a dangerous precedent if passed, as broadband providers could start lobbying officials in the other 49 states to ban free WiFi as well. According to the article, Pennsylvania has already fallen victim to such a law but it excluded Philedelphia due to the city's 'existing efforts.'"
'Free' Wifi? (Score:5, Informative)
According to http://www.wifimaps.com/ [wifimaps.com], there is only one wireless network within half a mile of my house, despite the fact that hundreds of people live in that area.
Why should the vast majority of the population subsidize the small percentage of people who are interested in this stuff? It's not like Internet connectivity is *that* expensive.
Besides, do you really want to get your Internet connectivity from your local government?
Re:Not free at all (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, Comcast is doing a great job of delivering broadband Internet "better and cheaper" than the alternative means, aren't they? And isn't SBC doing such a great job being "better and cheaper" than alternatives, too?
Oh, what's that? They suck? They're a huge pain in the ass, they have local monopolies, and they fix prices at whatever level they wish? Naaaah, that couldn't possibly be the case...
p
Texans: Write your legislator! (Score:5, Informative)
Unitary government (Score:2, Informative)
If your town wants to install WiFi, have the people interested form a co-op, and do it! No need to force other people to pay.
Illinois Senate bill 0499 (Score:5, Informative)
I sent letters to my state senator and representative encouraging them to vote against it when and if the opportunity came up, and I fully encourage any other Illinois residents to do the same. If you're not sure who your state senator and representative are, you can find out at Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org] by entering your 9-digit ZIP code. If your state senator is on the Environment & Energy Committee [ilga.gov] it's even more important that you get in touch with them.
My letter (adjusted appropriately for the recipient) reads:
Re:This seems silly (Score:2, Informative)
Re:local ISPs (Score:2, Informative)
From the New York Times [nytimes.com]: "City officials envision a seamless mesh of broadband signals that will enable the police to download mug shots as they race to crime scenes in their patrol cars, allow truck drivers to maintain Internet access to inventories as they roam the city, and perhaps most important, let students and low-income residents get on the net." The other good quote from this article: "'Government doesn't do service well,' said Eric Rabe, vice president for public relations for Verizon."
right. because Verizon DOES do service well. oh, the irony.
If this truly upsets you... (Score:1, Informative)
free wi-fi is a loss leader (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, to be fair, this is Texas you are talking about, where they are going to go to mostly all toll roads and football is a subsidised state sponsored religion.... Just a whole different mindset there so it's hard to figger. No idea really what they will do. My *guess* is big money monopoly styled capitalism in the form of some good ole boy backroom deals and some cash and hookers and booze will run the legislative vote on that issue, same as most places when something this controversial and of such a threat to the monopolists comes up.
FCC member Copps slams anti-muniwifi bills (Score:3, Informative)
FCC Commissioner Says U.S. Broadband Effort Insufficient
Mar 1, 2005
ZDNet News via NewsEdge Corporation
Michael Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member Federal Communications Commission,
As a policy-maker, Copps is outraged that the United States isn't near the top of countries with broadband penetration. While admitting the difficulty in comparing the United States with Japan, Korea or Norway, Copps also voices the growing restlessness of government officials who fret about the private sector's ability to ensure that all Americans get access to broadband.
Big changes are reshaping the telecom industry. Giant mergers--SBC Communications acquiring AT&T, Verizon Communications swallowing MCI--raise huge questions about how consumers will be affected. More local-government efforts to create their own broadband networks are facing fierce resistance from the Baby Bells and cable companies such as Comcast.
Calling broadband "the most central infrastructure challenge facing the country right now," Copps is wrestling with how to turn the United States into the most connected country in the world. Can private industries do it themselves, or will it take a regulatory prod to get there? Copps recently spoke with CNET News.com about these issues, as well as the recent complaints of Internet phone service Vonage that it's not getting a fair shake from local phone companies.
Q: Looking at the state of broadband from the consumer perspective, is adoption at a good point right now?
A: Well, if I was a consumer I would say, "Why in the hell is the United States No. 13 and heading south in broadband deployment? Why are folks in Korea and Japan maybe getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price? I am paying for the slow setup I've got--that is called high-speed broadband?"
I don't think there is that much satisfaction with the situation we're in...I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment. We recently got a commitment on a goal, on an objective. But an objective and a strategy are two vastly dissimilar things.
Q: What makes sense in terms of a national broadband policy?
A: I think Congress is going to have to work through that. If we are going to fix the Universal Service system, which is predicated on the idea that everybody should have access to comparable communications at comparable and reasonable prices, we have to ask, is our advanced telecommunications part of that or not? Is broadband a part of that or not? So before we start fixing every little problem with universal service I think we ought to have some kind of a philosophical or national purpose or national objective discussion about where does broadband fit in.
I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment.
At the same time, the state legislature in Indiana recently shot down a bill that would impose significant restrictions on municipalities for launching their own broadband infrastructure services.
It's not an easy thing if you're the leader of a hard-pressed, cash-strapped municipality--as all of them are in this day and age--to take on additional burden of providing broadband to your people.
I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--"Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering w
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:4, Informative)
That is true, unless the community is not being served by any of the existing businesses. If a telco refuses to enter a market because it has bigger fish to fry, it is perfectly acceptable for government to step in to fill the need. The government can set this up as a pseudo business so that it can help meet the needs of a subset of it's population without charging all of them for it. There may not have been any private companies capable of putting a satellite into orbit for many years, but that doesn't mean NASA wasn't going to charge people for the service.
It's also arguable that in a monopoly situation where the population is not being best served by an existing singular channel it is acceptable for the government to step in and provide needed reasonable competition. Or if the situation is extremely exploitive, the government can and has declared emminent domain and forcibly bought out the owners.
What most people here are complaining about are the situations where an area is not being served by a broadband provider, which is still significantly more than 50% of the US, yet would be prevented from setting up their own divisions to cover the need, because they would be threatening potential business that the broadband providers at some point in the future might want to exploit. But as most of the people in these areas have been waiting for years for coverage maps to bother with them, it seems perfectly acceptable for localities to choose to pick up the slack.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Informative)
The government is of, for and by the people, but it is not the people.
The problem with representative democracy is that it is not possible for the desires of every individual person to be represented. The ultimate moral question with this issue is "Why should the hard-working single mother of two who can barely pay her bills let alone afford a computer have to pay MORE taxes to support "free" Wi-Fi for a bunch of geeks who make three times more than she does and who ALREADY have Internet access anyway?"
Would I personally love to be able to get free broadband access from anywhere? Sure! But whenever government gives something away, it has to take from someone else to pay for it.
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
Right. and it's more cost effective to have a government-sanctioned police force than it is for each person to hire private security. Think of all the jobs that would be created if that were the case.
Fire, ambulance, other emergency services: There are economic constraints here that simply do not apply to internet providers. The nature of the service makes a single emergency service provider more efficient than multiple providers. But be that as it may, there are STILL private fire departments today, and they work. They don't let houses burn down just because you're not a member.
Right, so despite government competition in the right markets the private sector can still effectively compete against the government. In my parents area there are government-sanctioned ambulances and professional ambulances. At a certain level the professional ambulances are even called by the government ambulance company as they have the best equipment and training. But for broken arms and lacerations the government-sanctioned truck is quite sufficient and the cost is significantly lower than it would be if the professionals were called each time.
Road crews: Most road crews are private firms. At least in my area they are
Hmm, in this area I've never heard of a private road crew, except for construction companies who sometimes get a new road contract. Every town has a road crew. So your area is an example of private industry providing a better solution than government. But in this area there is so much road work to do with the winters we have that town would go broke having to hire a construction company to do all the repairs. So we have our own road crew (about 5 guys an a bunch of heavy gear) to maintain the roads. It's a matter of collective cost savings.
Tax assessors: This is a wierd one, and I'm not sure why you bring it up. There is NO market purpose for tax assessors, as taxes are not market goods. Even though they do essentially identical work to real estate appraisers, the results of their work are for completely different purposes.
That's exactly my point. You can sub out tax assessor work to real estate appraisers and have a computer work out the tax rates and achieve identical results to the state-employed tax assessor. In fact, that's what my town has done. Because it was more cost effective than hiring more town employees. Here the cost equation came down on the side of private industry.
Government trash companies are getting very rare these days, but they still tend to be city/county granted monopolies, so the end result is the same: government destruction of competition. But the only reason it's this way is tradition. There's no economic reason you can't have competing trash companies. I know, because my home town has two competing trash companies, serving the SAME area!
And in the area I live in there are dozens of small trash collection companies that will take your refuse to the dump. There is also a town-subbed truck that drives the town route and will pick up your trash if you have a pre-paid sticker on it. Typically it's more cost effective to put out the trash on the curb with stickers on them, but for large amounts of refuse it's more cost effective for the private collectors to come get it. There's a government service available but no enforced monopoly.
There's a very long history of communities pooling their resources to maintain infrastructure and services when it's more economically beneficial to the citizenry. I can't see how data services are significantly different. If the government enforces a monopoly, that's clearly wrong. If a government then feels a right to regulate private industry, that's also clearly wrong. And
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Informative)
This is something that's been terribly wrong for a long time.
Note that the Internet (nee ARPAnet) was designed and built with about 99% funding from the US government. ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, has always been an arm of the US Army (and it's now DARPA, since they added "Defense" to the name). They funded it because private industry was unwilling or unable to develop the sort of communication system that the military wanted. What they wanted was for any device from any manufacturer to talk to any other device from any other manufacturer, under battlefield conditions.
This isn't a fluke. Historically, a dominant motive for technological development has always been for warfare. Part of the reason is that research is fairly expensive, and cost-conscious organizations don't want to pay for it. (They want someone else to pay, and then they'll take over the commercial development.
I'd agree that there is something terribly wrong with this. But it's how we humans behave.