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.'"
How many? (Score:1, Insightful)
So that would be the other 48?
Maybe not so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems silly (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if this passes, the terrorists have really won.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe when it's all locked up in private hands you'll see rates more akin to those of satellite or cable TV.
Why should taxpayers fund Public Libraries when there's perfectly good bookstores around to sell them books and magazines, eh?
I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they're lying. Plain and simple.
"That's not to say they disagree with the wireless provision. SBC Communications, which has more DSL customers in the nation than any other provider, said cities should be allowed to offer wireless Internet access in public places, such as parks and libraries. But they should not directly compete with private enterprises by providing services to residents and businesses, said company spokesman Gene Acuña.
"If they do, then we would have some real concerns," he said."
Such as what? If the town/city screws it up then people can purchase their own service. It should be up to the taxpayers to decide if they want this or not. And if you're a tax payer who does not want your money wasted on this, then fight it in your city.
Re:This seems silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, if a company can write the laws to force people to buy your product, then it sounds like a pretty good plan. Almost (but not quite) makes you want to help out Ralph Nader, doesn't it?
Re:Not free at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Buncha fracking liars (Score:3, Insightful)
I have lived in Texas and let me tell you this, Special interests RULE the legislature in Texas. The Texas legislature is limited by its constitution to meet for only 140 days every TWO years. The legislators are overloaded with work they HAVE to do to keep the state running. Because of that they rely on special interests very heavily.
In addition to that, campaign finance laws in Texas are virtually non-existant. There are no limits on contributions by citizens. My former representative bought a Ford Explorer with the leftovers of his campaign war-chest and got away with it.
Free? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing is free (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that a lot of WiFi's popularity has been helped by commercial hot spots. What incentive do companies have if they know the government will put them out of business?
Disclaimer: I own pre ipo stock at a major hot spot provider.
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the city can bury it in other taxes. You never actually know the "cost" of something because you're not paying on an individual basis. There is real incentive to make something efficient from a business standpoint, because your customers see the real cost of the service in their bill every month.
Taxes, on the other hand, are not so clear cut. Your "free" WiFi might actually be costing a hundred bucks a month per person, more than the, say, $60 a commercial provider might charge, but since it's in taxes, you never actually know this. And, things will never get better, since commercial providers can't compete against "free". Everyone loses.
I believe the unstated debate on this issue is whether Internet access should be considered a utility along the lines of power and water, and, if it is, is WiFi access a necessary utility? It wouldn't surprise me that the technocratic elite of Slashdot (and that's what we are, honestly) wouldn't think twice about declaring it a utility, but for the average person, I'm not sure it's so clear cut.
I believe a good compromise (if we were to deem this a utility) would be for the city to contract out the service to a commercial provider. Take bids, see who'll do it for the lowest price. Then, every four years or so, the contract is up, and the bidding starts again. This helps prevent government waste, and harnesses the efficieny of a private corporation (which, naturally, wants to be profitable).
If the lowest bid seems too high, this is a signal that the service is _not_ worth providing! Either the government reasses the value of said service (and then pays the higher amount), or they realize, quite simply, that it is not an efficient, necessary thing to do at this time.
-Erwos
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be more surprising that they haven't activated Wi-fi Protected Access, or WPA, however. Definitely more related to WEP, either way. ;-)
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Free" as in Routers are Purchased by Magic Elv (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the whole point of this. If this law is passed, people will NOT get to vote - it will be banned no matter what. Do you think it should be illegal for public libraries to provide public hotspots?
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
If people in my town wanted this and we voted on it, then that would one thing. But if people in my town wanted it and the council said "I'm sorry, you don't have the right to vote on it" then that's a whole different story.
I believe that's the issue here.
Two Points from a Texas Resident (Score:5, Insightful)
2. That said, I am opposed to this law because it violates the principles of federalism and subsidiarity, i.e., power should devolve to the lowest level of government capable of handling the problem. Just as the federal government should enact no laws or programs capable of being taken care of by state governments (see also the Tenth Amendment), state governments should make no law limiting the range of freedom of local governments to govern themselves (naturally, this is as long as laws passed by such local governments do not infringe upon the guaranteed rights of it's citizens).
Thus while I think it's a bad idea for local governments to pay for free WiFi access, it's a worse idea for the state government to be sticking it's nose unnecessarily into local affairs.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
I see your point, but in this particular case, the bandwidth is a commodity, where the library and the book store aren't offering identical products/services. I don't agree that the government should be using their disposition (and probably deep municipal bandwidth discounts) to remove potential income from private industry. But at the same time I'm thinking, "Why aren't the ISPs offering wireless access?" Something's terribly wrong when the government is on the cutting edge of technology.
Wonderful... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why government-regulated industries and socialist ideas exist in the first place: Because some people as a group are willing to provide subsidized {access to new technology, farm aid, health care, social security} to those who are not able to afford it, in hopes that their efforts will eventually give economic stability to those being helped.
If you can't afford to eat, then clearly you can't even begin to worry about finding a job. Hence we have welfare. This application of the idea is little different: This "socialist" WiFi allows people access to technology that they would otherwise not have a prayer of seeing...which helps teach them English if they don't speak it, prepares them for the future, and makes them much more employable. This in turn boosts the economy.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Reason Being... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are major benefits... (Score:5, Insightful)
I look forward to a time when you can go to small towns across the country and see them revitalized by being well connected. This could be the solution to the last mile problem that the major telecom players are unwilling to solve.
Their cost/benefit analysis just doesn't have the community's interest at heart to the same degree that a mayor or city council will. This sort of legislation must be seen for the defensive maneuver it is.
Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is city water necessary? It competes against providers of bottled water. Is that fair?
Public schools and colleges compete against private and parochial ones. Again, is this fair?
Libraries compete against bookstores.
City garbage collection competes against private trash haulers.
Police compete against private security companies. Perhaps police should only patrol public areas. Anyone owning private property should hire a security company.
Public housing projects compete against private landlords.
Public parking lots and street parking competes against private parking garages.
The USPS competes against UPS, FedEx, Airborne Express, and others.
PBS and NPR compete against commercial television and radio.
My point is simple. We have many services provided by governments that compete against private companies, yet we see no problem with them. Some you may think are essential, and some you may think should be turned over entirely to the private sector. However, it's naive to go around saying that wi-fi isn't an essential service and therefore shouldn't be provided by a city when there are many other things that cities do that could also be classified as non-essential, depending on how you define what is and isn't essential. It's simply not a black and white issue. What a government should and shouldn't provide ought to be an issue decided by those who are governed, not by legislators bankrolled by big telecom companies.
Buggy Whip Lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
I represent the buggy whip industry, and we would like to join the efforts against municipalities who are offering useful public services.
While we no longer pack the lobbying punch we did 100 years ago, we feel its important to make a stand here and now. It is not the cities place to provide mass public transportation on its roads. God created the horse to transport man. He gave us whips to get those horses moving.
Buses are bad, so are cars. Horses eat grass, and could be feed on our lawn clippings further protecting the environment. Even horse's shit can be useful in fertilizing and for electrical generation, Clearly Municipal governments missed the boat 100 years ago in funding such follies as public roads, and mass transit systems.
As a God fearing nation of people we implore our leaders to stop trying to mess with Gods plan, and threaten wholesome established industries. Much like our own buggy whip industry once was; simply because technology has made it economically feasible to provide such services.
Why should tax payers pay for things they might actually use more than say a library or more often than a park? To hell with the people who would benifit from those services, you need thriving industry lobbying dollars. Unfortunately at the time our industry did not react quickly enough, and we are but a footnote in history. Don't let that happen to what's left of the Bells.
Communications and access to information is a priviledge and should only be readily accessible to those who can afford it, and those willing to pay for it. Information and the internet most certainly are different than other services traditionally provided by local governments, like libraries.
We the buggy whip industry clearly messed up a 100 years ago. It is going to take a lot of effort to reverse the clear damage done to our industry by the municipalities senseless actions.
But here ans now we can help prevent a another senseless travesty by feverently supporting the telecommunications industry's oppisition to the communistic cesspools of municiple wifi Internet access.
Infact, I hear you can even get pornography, and other naughty things, for free on the Internet. I heard that terrorists might even use tit to communicate.
Surely a God fearing, senator representing good wholesome people in the worlds greatest democracy, will not allow these back water heathanistic towns to undermine the very fabric of our country.
Municipal wifi will taking jobs away for hard working telecommunications workers who often risk their lives high atop poles stringing cable for one of the great and lasting american icons. Municipal wifi will encourage people to get online and have access to dangerous information, and maybe even porn.
Municipal wifi is communism, it might even be an even more communistic than the GPL, and free software. (Those Linux zealots will undoubtably further undermine the economicy if allowed to leverage their radical beliefs to the masses with free Internet.)
For Gods ske this is AMERICA, we cannot block the internet liek CHINA and get a way with it. We need to limit the free flow of information more covertly. We have already made broadband Internet dangerously low priced. Higher government cannot afford to let everyone have access to the knowledge and power of the Internet. If that happens then things like Internet voting could become a realistic. Vote turnout would sore, and fine Senetors might become obsolete like buggy whips.
We the buggy whip industry implore you to NOT let our fate happen NEEDLESSLY AGAIN.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's No Such Thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that a majority of the services bought by tax money goes out to benefit everyone. Local fire department? Even if your house never catches on fire, good coverage will make your insurance premiums lower. Schools? Even if you're an old fogey with no kids, educated children are less likely to become ruffians who you have to chase off your yard with a cane. Medical care? Even if you're never sick, preventative health care would reduce the number of days of work lost to sick days, plus contain outbreaks of infectious disease before it becomes widespread (too bad America doesn't buy into this). Water? Electricity? Sewage? At one time the only effective way to get pipes and wires to every person in the city was for the government to do it itself, and in doing so it modernized life for everyone.
Wireless is a bit harder to justify as a good-for-everyone deal. But what if a city decided to set up wireless points and ask the users to pay for it rather than doing it with their taxes? This law (from the first time this dupe was posted) [slashdot.org] would still make it illegal, because the purpose of the law isn't to say what cities should or should not do with tax money, its to make sure that people don't get wireless service until one of the Big Telecom companies deigns to provide the service in a suitably overcharged and crippled format.
For folks who don't read the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
"These are very disruptive, low-cost technologies, and it's not in the incumbent telecommunication companies' best interest to embrace them," Gurley said. "But these are technologies that can be very beneficial to communities."
He(or she) offers two diametrically opposed opinions, and realizes what is best for the community, but seems more supportive in banning free wi-fi. Bad article... doesn't seem to say who this person is, or what position they hold either in government or private sector.
Another quote, this time from SBC spokesperson:
That's not to say they disagree with the wireless provision. SBC Communications, which has more DSL customers in the nation than any other provider, said cities should be allowed to offer wireless Internet access in public places, such as parks and libraries. But they should not directly compete with private enterprises by providing services to residents and businesses, said company spokesman Gene Acuña.
Also note, the telecom companies were not involved with writing the bill -- basically this proposed law is just a provision that a business or residential areas should not be able to get free internet via wi-fi provided by the government.
King's chief of staff, Trey Trainor, said they are rewriting the telecommunications bill to recognize that there are legitimate uses for municipal networks, such as public safety communication, meter-reading and other city services. King's basic objection, Trainor said, stands -- in a free-market system it's not acceptable to let public government compete with private businesses.
These telecom companies are wanting to get these people as customers and make it illegal to use a free wi-fi hotspots, but also distancing themselves by saying essentially that they are not responsible for the bill at all.
All in all, I am surprised the most reasonable causes for this sort of bill to go through have not been mentioned in the article: kiddie porn, spam, and hacking.
I see people using my access point for their main source of internet, either on purpose or accident. Big deal.
Re:Maybe not so bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
My opinion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Governments are great at running at a loss, simply because they can do it. They don't have to report profits to stockholders. Some things in life cannot be provided by private industry (or simply are not provided) simply because they are immensely unprofitable- like basic scientific research, space exploration (not involving suborbital millionaire tourists), law enforcement, development of open protocols like TCP/IP, military defense, and providing health insurance that doesn't leave you filing for bankruptcy if you get sick.
You must be the only person on Slashdot that does not think there is enough "government" and taxes in this country as it is. I _really_ don't need the government taking even more of my money because they think they are better at spending it then I am.
You're allowing a blanket ideology to cloud your judgment of what is reasonable and what isn't. Running an access point is cheap.
Free Wi-Fi as in Free Groceries (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. But if there was a single grocery chain in town and they refused to sell to people who lived in certain parts of town and set prices arbitrarily high compared to similar nearby towns that had more than one grocery, I would expect the government to try to defends its citizens basic right to eat.
They could encourage competition by helping other groceries open and defending those new groceries, or they could supply food to people who couldn't afford usurious prices.
But I wouldn't expect my city government to let people starve on the basis of competition.
Re:Not free at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
Here is one of many such references: http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/robinstes
If you think about it, it makes sense that Medicare is a lot more efficient. HMOs and the like have complicated payment structures, require several authorizations for treatments, have various methods for billing individuals versus employers, have marketing costs, maintain lists of 'in-plan' doctors and facilities, etc. Medicare on the other hand has a list of who is registered and another list of how much they will pay for each category of care. Since there is only one pricing structure and one entity to send and receive bills, the whole operation is simplified and thereby cheaper to run than having many companies all looking out for their own profits.
Likewise, having a single large buyer allows for better negotiation with pharmaceutical companies. Why are drugs cheap in Canada? Its because the entire country buys them as a whole and refuses to pay the outlandish prices the pharmaceutical industry tries to push.
Want more examples?
Try education for instance. As a graduate of an elite private college I can attest that such institutions provide excellent (maybe even 'the best' possible, if there is such a thing) education. But efficiently? Charging $40,000+/year to give 2500 students an education is a hell of a lot less efficient than charging $15,000(or less)/year to give 30,000+ students an education that can be every bit as good (or at least pretty close) as one at a private institution. Whether or not the margin of difference in quality (and style) is worth $100,000 is up to the student (and their parents), but in terms of efficiency the public universities are the clear winners.
How about elementary/secondary education? Public schools routinely educate students on less than $10,000/year/student [stateline.org] and educate millions of children. Private schools typically cost at least twice as much and educate only a tiny fraction of the number. Maybe their quality is a little higher, maybe not. My public high-school in rural PA was pretty crappy due to a lack of local tax base and PA not pooling education funds state-wide. The teachers did the best with what they had though and the district gave everyone a basic education at a very cheap rate. Quite efficient.
If we wish our civilization to survive we must break with the habit of deference to great men.
-- Karl Popper
Great doubt: great awakening.
Little doubt: little awakening.
No doubt: no awakening.
-- Zen koan
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that is a facile oversimplification. They're not banning free stuff. They're banning stuff that taxpayers would be forced to pay whether they used it or not.
I presume that any person could still buy wi-fi hotspots with his own dime and offer them to his fellow citizens for free.
Let's think of this in terms of the money... (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations can certainly compete and continue to influence as many people as possible into buying their lousy products.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't quite follow your point as to "why" there is no free market in telecom. OK, so it's a service with inelastic demand, like cigarettes and gasoline (in the short run). So as goods with low demand elasticity, cigarettes and gasoline get really high taxes; but that's no reason for the government to give them a monopoly. In fact, in economic terms, if the government is trying to maximize tax revenue, then they want a competitive market, especially for inelastic goods with giant taxes on them. Competition brings down prices and increases total sales, and every time there's a sale the government gets their huge tax. The government doesn't care if you go to BP or Texaco, if you smoke Marlboros or Virginia Slims. They get their taxes either way. So why the monopolies in telecom?
And I don't see how any of this applies to your last point, "if you believe for a second it's about being nice to you and giving you free Internet, you're the biggest sucker out there. Government and big business is a serious sport. Wake up and look at who's putting the money behind the efforts you're idealistically supporting."
Well, government is putting money behind municipalities providing broadband as a government utility. If governments collect taxes to pay for the service, then give the service away for "free" on the margins, that will prevent them from being able to collect a tax on it. If they're giving it away for free, they not only can't tax it, they have to use other tax revenue to subsidize it. Also, by offering it at no marginal cost, people will discontinue their paid DSL and Cable broadband service (which they pay taxes on), and switch to the "free" government service (which they're already paying for). Thus providing free broadband will erode their existing tax base!
So I disagree with your insinuations regarding the motives of those promoting municipal broadband. They probably are acting for their own self interest, as they understand it. But the locals are probably for it because they don't understand that when the government provides something for "free," it's likely to cost them more in total, and be lower quality. The government backers just want more programs to administrate; it makes more jobs to hand out, more "good" they can say they're doing for the community, more accomplishments for their resume, more media coverage, larger budgets, more people to supervise, all leading to more pwoer, prestige, and higher salaries for themselves. Basically, all the normal incentives for government to expand.
Re:Not free at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Private education is expensive because the customers are rich.
If you want to send your kid to public school, all you have to pay is the school taxes, which you would have to pay anyway. If you want to send your kid to private school, you have to pay both the school tax and the private school tuition. As a result, almost all private school parents are wealthy, because they're the only ones who can afford to pay both the tax & the tuition. Thus private schools can charge more, because the parents can afford it.
If you implemented a tax exemption whereby any parent who did not have a student in public school did not have to pay the school tax, suddenly there would be thousands and thousands of parents who couldn't afford private school before but could now. In response to this increased market demand, more private schools would open up, many of them catering to the market of lower-income parents by offering even lower tuition rates.
And I can guarantee that they would offer a better education than public schools and a lower cost. How can I guarantee that?
Because if they didn't, parents would put their kids back into public school and the new private schools would go out of business. That means there's nothing to lose, yet everything to gain.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Remove potential income"? Do you work for the RIAA? Potential income can't be "removed" because it doesn't exist. And there's not a single thing in the world the government (or anyone) could do that could not be defined by someone else as "removing" their potential income.
How's this: I don't agree with the idea that private industry should be using its disposition (and probably deep tax breaks and overpriced contracts with government organizations) to remove potential services from the public. Now do you see what's wrong with your statement?
Lessig in Wired: "Why Your Broadband Sucks" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two Points, Only One Left... (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't seem to me like your "principle" is followed very closely in our current society, nor is it obvious that we are the worse for it...
Re:Wonderful... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Has a computer
2) Is interested in Internet access
3) Can't afford $20 / month dial-up
4) Doesn't smoke
5) Doesn't drink
6) Doesn't use other recreational drugs
7) Doesn't have cable or satellite TV
8) Owns a car with the stock stereo system in it
9) Spends not more than I do on shoes (around $20 every 3 months)
10) Doesn't buy lottery tickets
Your list is a little off, because many of the people that free wi-fi would benefit are children of the parents who do the above, and thus have no power over these choice.
For instance, from my childhood:
1. We had a computer.
2. Um...yeah.
3. We could afford $20 dial-up, but barely. And my mom got pissed when I tied up the phone line, so I couldn't use it all that often.
4. My mom smoked. Tried to convince her not to. So what can I, as a child (but still a citizen being helped) do about this?
5. Same as 4...plus she didn't drink much.
6. Not that I know of.
7. Not everybody in metro areas bothers with these...in Phoenix we could get all the TV we needed with an antenna.
8. Even after I had a license, we had only one car, roughly 15 years old, an yeah, it still had a stock stereo.
9. I don't know exactly what we spent on shoes...but I know I usually only got 1-2 pairs per school year. I know I wasn't wearing Air Jordans(TM), if that's what you're getting at...maybe a 50 dollar pair of Simples (both because I liked them and they tended to last longer than most other shoes)
10. Nope. And even if my mom did, again see intro.
Remember, you make these blanket statements forgetting that there are kids in poor and/or single-parent households that should not be held responsible for the decisions (however poor) their parents make.
That and I think many people don't know what it's like to be poor and not have much control over it (such as being raised by a single mom on 15,000 or less a year...with no child support coming in from a deadbeat dad). Some parents do the best they know how and still can't provide better.
Seriously, that's who these free wi-fi projects would help the most in large urban areas...the kids of poor adults...not the poor adults themselves. Decide for yourself whether or not it's worth it. Having been one of those kids, I think it would be. Hell, and I didn't have it as bad as many.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea is that we look after each other and the world becomes a better place, idealistic yes, but it's a damn site better than exploitative capatalism which is the current meme.
* NHS, I'm British
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:1, Insightful)
Thats how majority vote works in a democracy. If you are the only one in town who does not want to pay taxes then its your bad luck. You are however free to live town. Freedom comes for a price.
If the people who want wireless, be they 10%, 51%, or 99%, can pay for the costs of it, a company will be sure to provide it.
And who guarantees that it will not be an "1 mbps" service with a real bandwidth of 500-250 kpbs and worth $50/month + 50$ install charge? If you cannot guarantee that then stop telling the citizens of a town about what they can and cannot.
If they can't, then it shouldn't be there in the first place - it's not valuable enough to people to be worth putting in.
If they can't afford service from a lousy and bloated and monopolistic private ISP then they have every right to use their tax money to develop the infrastructure. Nobody owes any money to the Bells/AT&Ts and their like.
Except the government has the use of force - it can tax the corporation, regulate it to death or ban it outright
Which can again be a law. A government shall not prevent a private enterprise from competing. What you are asking for is that a government (which means the people it represents) shall give up its right to compete. There's a difference between a "let live" and a "screw myself" attitude.
and it can make people who don't use the service pay for it.
Thats exactly how the system of taxes works. You have to pay taxes whether you like it or not. And lots of private monopolies, oligopolies force you to pay "taxes" by reducing competition and thru all kinds of unfair practices. Think microsoft.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I learned some math. Here's a little math lesson.
Inelastic goods tend to have a lump sum, or flat tax (as opposed to a flat rate tax). Cigarettes, in every state in the US, are taxed by the pack. [taxadmin.org] And guess what, gasoline? Taxed by the gallon [ca.gov] And holy crap, look at this, I'm looking at my SBC local phone bill right now, and the tax is charged by the line. A portion of my long distance tax charges is actually done as a percentage, but guess what, they're changing that [keepusffair.org] to a flat rate, too. And hang on, I've got my Adelphia broadband bill here, and it's got a flat rate monthly tax too!
So in your example, where they sell twice as much at 1/3 the price, tax revenue would be exactly... twice as much. So I'm looking forward to the second insallment of your math lesson where you contue to explain how I'm such an idiot for thinking that if people buy more of these things, the tax revenue will increase, and enlighten me as to how it will "definitely be less." Of course, without knowing the supply and demand curves, you can't know if it would be more or less even if it were a percentage tax, and in almost all cases, you're wrong, because total sales almost always increase when prices drop. But that's another story.
So, instead of spending $50 on a private ISP, if they spend $25 of their taxes on "free" government service
Try supposing it's $100 for the government's service, and that it ends up going out all the time, being a fifth the speed of the $50 private service, and if you think tech support is lousy these days, imagine having to drive somewhere and stand in line for 5 hours just to have them tell you they don't care and won't help.
According to IDC [idc.com], 5 million americans have a wifi card now. That's about 1.6% of the population. Of course, not all of those are 802.11 b to work with these networks, but let's round up in the government's favor. Philadelpia, the first US city to try this, has a population of about 1.5 million. [wikipedia.org] Philadelpia's spending $10 million [zmetro.com] on setup and expects operating costs of $1.5 million. Thus, if Philadelphians own wireless cards at about an average rate, then about 24,000 of them have cards. So for the first year, they're spending $458 of tax money per resident who could even possibly try to make use of the service. Of course, this is just to put one wireless hub on each block; what pecent of people do you think could actually get service without leaving thier home? Our 802.11 hub only reaches some rooms in our house, and it's base station is right here. The people installing the networks admit that the base stations only reach about 100 feet, and that's when they aren't going through brick walls. So I wouldn't be surprised if their first year cost is closer to $4,000 per regular user. But other people will be paying that money, instead of them paying $50 for their own access, so it's good, right? Of course, more people will buy 802.11 cards in the future if there's "free" broadband available, so the numbers should improve, if the government can keep program costs under control.
Just out of curiosity, do you think those 24,000 out of 1,500,000 who have computers with 802.11 are among the poor? How many do you think have incomes at least two standard deviations above the mean? You do realize this is a tax on everyone, including the poor, to provide services overwhelmingly consumed by the rich, so they don't have to pay the fee themselves?
"So, instead of spending $50 on a private ISP, if they spend $25 of their taxes on "free" government service, they would have mo
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, private companies are abusing the system through bribery, not only to hold onto existing markets, but to create, from nowhere, markets and demand that otherwise would never have existed.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they can't afford service from a lousy and bloated and monopolistic private ISP then they have every right to use their tax money to develop the infrastructure.
Your assumption is that all private companies are lousy, bloated and monopolistic. Why not have the government nationalize the entire economy? Assuming you were referring primarily to incumbant LECs and cable operators, I'll agree with you that they are in most cases lousy, bloated and monopolistic. Except do you understand how they got that way? Governmental authorization and de facto monopoly establishment.
Study franchise law in telecommunications and you'll have an eye-opening experience. Or get exposed to your state's public utilities commission politics. You'll quickly discover that the following observation is completely untrue:
A government shall not prevent a private enterprise from competing
Completely incorrect. The government (state, Federal and to some degrees local) is quite active in this manner and very much controls who it permits to operate as its local communication infrastructure partners. Some examples:
- city/community level control: Franchise deals are made to establish a single monopoly provider of cable, phone, etc. The city gets a legal kick back from the revenues and the franchisee gets a guarantee that the city won't let anyone else compete through those precious right-of-ways. Other competitors are kept out simply by being denied access.
- county level control: out in our parts, a county zoning administrator who shall remain nameless prohibits the construction of communication towers of any type without paying excessive fees to her department. The fees, engineering requirements, etc. are such that a steep barrier to entry has been created ruling out all but the large telcos.
- state level: expensive to administer tax models are applied and other regulations that require the purchase of a $10 million taxing and billing package. State laws are watered down on collocation requirements between ILECs and CLECs, causing CLECs to be stalled for 2-3 years in litigation. US West (now Qwest) successfully kept Teleport Communications Group from connecting networks for several years. When finally forced by the court to permit collocation, US West found a loophole: it could not be required to provide collocation if it didn't have space. Suddenly, hundreds of US West employees had their desks moved to a chilled collocation facility in order to lock up the space and again prevent Teleport from connecting. More than five years later, Teleport (purchased by AT&T) had burnt through capital by sitting idle fighting nusiance legal issues. Other state regulations permit ILECs to cross-subsidize from monopoly businesses to competitive ones, further ensuring no competition will survive in their markets. The state gets the assurance that the tired ILEC will continue to be their partner (they know that the ILEC will preserve the status quo, and status quos mean predictable revenue sources for governments).
- federal level: Numerous Federal requirements raise the cost of doing business, or provide subsidy for the elite crowd of carriers. For instance, US Senator Tom Harkin's bloated agriculture bill promised hundreds of millions to help provide broadband to rural US communities. The reality is that the rules were written (through the "assistance" of ILEC lobbyists) to ensure that only the old monopoly networks could get the money. Much has been unallocated, except for when the ILECs want low interest money for expansion.
- international level: Care to compete with PTTs in most countries? Forget about it. They represent a huge cash cow for most governments and the governments rarely like to share it. VoIP is increasingly being regarded as illegal traffic.
To say the government doesn't prevent a private enterprise from competing is to be completely out of phase. Telecom is a huge target for taxation due to its recognition as an economic necessity. Where there's guaranteed money, you'll always find the tax man right behind.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly! This is not 1950. Public Libraries are an anachronism.
Re:The Reason Being... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument doesn't follow at all! The government is the one that has forced Telcos to install phone lines in areas like yours, and funded it by taxing those of us who wisely choose to live near enough other people, where it is economical to provide services.
why can't the govt. provide services? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't agree that the government should be using their disposition (and probably deep municipal bandwidth discounts) to remove potential income from private industry.
By this rationale (and with very little exaggeration on my part), the govt. should stop:
Of course our society benefits from these things. And at the same time, there's opportunity for private companies to provide value-added services beyond what the government offers. Same with wireless.
The communications providers are worried they'll see subscription drop. Sure, some people will decide not to pay for service because there's an 802.11g signal covering their homes. But that's not going to even compare to the speed available via FTTH [wired.com]. At the same time, municipal wireless services brings internet connectivity to those who are impoverished and can't afford an ISP or maybe even a telephone service. These are the same people who can't afford to drink only bottled Ozarka water, or take their kids to swim at White Water on the weekends, or send their Xmas cards via FedEx.
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, my local government offers trash service for about $12/mo. Can I decline? Actually, I think I can. But I'll have to pay a private company $50/mo for service or use the local (private) landfill which has a $25 minimum tipping fee. The local gov already has a large conract for trash and tipping services, and I get the resulting efficiencies. I paid for the infrastructure via taxes, and I pay fo the add-on service at a (lower) bulk rate.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
Air is free... But boy could some company make a killing on it. Just think of all the "potential income" that's being lost by allowing people to breathe for free.