SBC Promotes Texas Anti-Wireless Bill 392
rhythmx writes "Details of this bill have been previously covered on Slashdot. SBC has since put up TV ads and a website saying that our telecom laws need to be changed. From their propaganda, "The Texas legislature has the opportunity to modernize telecom regulation and promote innovation to finally reach our goals for new technologies and enhanced consumer benefits." They hardy even mention the bill itself, basically only that it is "Good for Texas -- Good for Texans." This bill has already passed through the House and is now in the Texas state Senate."
Get a grip. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a news flash. Whining about SBC on Slashdot will have zero effect on this issue. ZERO There is, as yet, no law stopping you from putting up your own website and running your own television "propaganda" campaign on the matter.
What's more is that SBC is at least partly correct when they state that it is unfair that some providers, such as themselves, are regulated while others, such as any new comer, are not. It is unfair. I'm sure you aren't going to lose any sleep over SBC's losses, and neither am I but, if it were you that was being prejudiced against, you'd be crying the blues and singing another story completely.
It's all about the spin. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is using phrases like 'fair' and 'well-balanced' to describe a position that is clearly neither of those things. Fox News, anyone?
Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and if you disagree respond insted of just modding me down, I'd way rather hear your point than go to karma hell =)
Re:Radio... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does the government installing wireless everywhere save you money? The government is paying for that with tax dollars. You remember taxes? Where the government takes your money and gives it to someone else?
Re:It's all about the spin. (Score:5, Insightful)
That has to be the most inane slogan I've ever heard, but I'm sure the idiot majority will eat it up with a spoon.
Spin is a drain on the country. I wish someone besides John Stewart would come out on one of these news shows and call bullshit. All the pundits are just talking heads for their respective parties, spewing inane talking points 'til the cows come home.
Well, this is depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill is no different then, let's say, forbidding the citizens of a municipality from forming their own fire department...and making only one company the legal provider of "fire protection services".
In short, SBC is asking the state of Texas to provide them with a legally-approved monopoly. And the state is doing it.
When does this stop? When will citizens realize that the very people they're putting in office are signing over every right and interest they have to corporations who has no regard for their health, safety, or welfare? (And I'm hoping that the citizenry is ignorant of what's happening, because if they're not, the notion that people are willing to sign over their democratic rights is too depressing for me to contemplate)
Re:It's all about the spin. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just one more example of how hard it is to get real, unbiased information these days. It's not just telecom, people.
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
since I would personally benefit in this particular case, I am perfectly willing to cast my libertarian principles aside.
So, what's the difference between you and the state congress critter that gives in to corporate lobbying?
Rather than asking why... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it's a fair question to ask why they're regulated more than their new breed of competition. This new competition (wireless, VoIP, etc) has been far less reliable to this point in my experience. Vonage, while I love it, has certainly had repeated outages in the year that I've had it. It's been more reliable than Windows, but less reliable than my Verizon POTS.
Ditto with my Optimum Online.
If communications are essential for things like emergency service, and are a cause worthy of "universal service" type of access, then we need to regulate them to an extent to get the same level of reliability. If it's not that important, then there's no reason SBC should have to play by these rules, but not their competition.
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this different than Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer to drive Netscape out of business? How is this different than Microsoft giving away Media player hurting real? These are all things that have seemed good to a vast number of consumers, they got something for nothing. It also drove competition between Netscape and Microsoft, but led us to the spyware hell we are in today.
Corporations looking to protect their interests aren't evil. If the cities are going to drive the inovative hotspot providers out of business what incentive is there for the next innovation?
Disclaimer, as in the past, I have a small financial interest in a national WiFi provider. Before you tell me to get rid of it, its a bad possition, sometimes we don't have that choice. Dispite this disclaimer, I believe everything I have written.
Re:I agree, SBC should do unregulated wireless too (Score:3, Insightful)
It is good in low density areas and for mobile applications but it fails once the density goes up.
Even with 802.11g you only have 54mbits. While that seems like a lot it starts to suck when you get 500 people using it. There is a limited amount of bandwidth you can use for wireless. Think about it You can not have 50 WiFi suppliers to choose from. If you put 50 access points all covering one area you will get nothing! They will be stomping all over each other.
Re:Get a grip. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, write your representative, tell him he's lost a vote.
Write your own words, without resorting to name calling or cursing, or any other immature stuff that would get your letter summarily tossed into the trash can.
Don't send a boilerplate letter, partake in a mass-mailing, and don't waste time signing some online petition, those go straight to the trash can too (and for good reason, since they all reek of an agenda).
Believe it or not, when politicians start to see a growing number of real registered voters are turning against them, they actually do take heed.
Re:It's all about the spin. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Radio... (Score:3, Insightful)
How does the government installing wireless everywhere save you money? The government is paying for that with tax dollars. You remember taxes? Where the government takes your money and gives it to someone else?
Or, the government votes to have a third party install this network for a guaranteed monopoly and rates set by this local government. No tax dollars spent there.
Of course this wouldn't be too dissimilar to the SBC scenario, except that the local government (municipality, I'd guess) would have complete control over who does it, and what they charge.
Communism / Socialism (Score:1, Insightful)
Other free services I would propose.
1. Free cell phone service.
2. Free gym memberships.
3. Free taxi service.
4. Free lawn service.
5. Free utilities.
6. Free automobile manufacturing.
7. Free gasoline.
8. Free computers.
9. Free higher education.
10. Free food.
Of course taxes might have to be raised a bit, but it surely any one of these services would be worth it.
Re:Govt. Subsidized Wifi is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Govt. Subsidized Wifi is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
It is NOT free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate that kind of self-proclaimed libertarians. They're the nuts that think every cooperative venture in their ideal world must be some sort of corporation driven by market forces. Real libertarians realize that people can just get together and (say) form a volunteer fire department rather than everyone having to subscribe to a for-profit fire-fighting service if they want their burning house doused.
Re:Rather than asking why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it communism if the majority of people choose to have the government provide certain services? That's a democracy if ever there was one. What you're suggesting is that ideologically the free market (i.e. corporations) must rule above the will of the people, and even in contradiction to the will of the people, which if it were strictly the case that would be far more closely aligned to other totalitarian/mercantilist/communist systems. The executive board of a small handful of companies should not be imposing decisions on communities about how any service should be provided. Now you might ask, should people be "allowed" to vote in a socialist policy? Of course they should, if they were not then it would not be a democracy anymore (don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism with communism etc.) ... modern democracies like the USA are full of socialist-like policies (e.g. minimum wage), and most people actually regard them as a good thing for society at large.
Old Story: (Score:3, Insightful)
Big special interests attack the weakest and most corrupt states first.
Re:Radio... (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but it's a lot easier to manage on a local level. It also allows smaller players to compete on their scale. So, say, Elk, TX can get their own wireless broadband by ElkCo (this is just a fictional example as far as I know), when SBC really wouldn't care about the two hundred people there, and give them shank service.
Plus, the contract can be renewed at a frequency that better suits the size of the authority (say it's important to them and they want a public review every six months, it's their call). They also have control over specifics of the contract, the ability to negotiate small things that really wouldn't matter to the state (or megacorporation) at all.
Re:Get a grip. (Score:2, Insightful)
There doesn't need to be a law when it takes $1000 per second to air.
Re:Get a grip. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet posting about this on slashdot can create widerspread discussion and can allow people to advocate action. It's a fine line.
Re:Radio... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about all the companies that have invested to put WiFi where it is? Is it fair for the cities to decide that it should be free and drive them out of business?
Sure. The "cities" are made up of citizens. They all have priorities. If they collectively decide to fund a "free" wifi system, then they have decided that they would rather do it themselves than pay a private firm. Just because a company has "invested" in an infrastructure, that does not mean that they have a god-given right to profit from their investments. An investment is a risk and it is not the city's role to make sure that every investor hits jackpot every time.
Besides, nobody (I don't think) is looking to outlaw companies that would like to offer wifi service. There remain opportunities for them to run profitable businesses by beating the municipal wifi in areas other than price (service, coverage, speed, etc). If the other wifi providers are driven out of business, that means they had nothing special to offer the marketplace.
How is this different than Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer to drive Netscape out of business?
In a few ways.
1. Intent: The city has no interest, or capability, to suppress or co-opt the growth of wifi. If the system becomes stagnant, there are fewer barriers to alternate service providers. Ultimately, voting in a new set of city administrators would solve the problem. The Microsoft browser case was much different. Can you vote in a new board for Microsoft?
2. Bundling: Your use of municipal roads and water does not predispose you to using municipal wifi. You can have water delivered to your house by private contract, as you should have a choice in private or public wifi. With Windows and Internet Explorer, this was company using its success in one market segment to leverage itself into an advantage in another segment.
3. Externalities: Funny you mention spyware. We have all suffered because of the stagnation of browser market because of the bundling of operating system and web browser. How does this apply to wifi? Will municipal wifi cause more potholes? I don't understand your argument.
Corporations looking to protect their interests aren't evil.
I agree. But the corporations exerting power to set public policy that ordinary citizen do not have is disgusting to many people here. Corporations that look to protect their profits at the expense of the citizenry is hardly ethical.
Besides, I think the real profits are made in the content, not the connection. Free and ubiquitous wifi will be a boon to content providers in the way cable tv has been. Like it or not, our culture desires fat, free, and dense connections: our roads, our internet, our tv networks are all examples. Why not the airwaves too?
If the cities are going to drive the inovative hotspot providers out of business what incentive is there for the next innovation?
I think you answered your own question. The changing market will still allow entrepreneurs to innovate. Wifi is cool and all, but there should be more exciting things on the horizon. If cities reduce the opportunities for easy profits (pick the low hanging fruits), it will drive innovation into new technologies. I don't know about your city, but my county government just seemed to figure out how to connect to web. If cities are thinking wifi, it can't be cutting edge anymore.
Blue vs. Red (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Get a grip. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know why money is the only speech? Because regular speech by regular citizens gets in the way of Must See TV.
Your attitude is EXACTLY why money rules all. Because WE let it. Instead of making excuses on slashdot, why don't you go try and do something about it. Better to try and fail, than sit there and fail.
I'd call people with your attitude a pussy, but that would make lazy cats look bad.
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
You, my friend?!? are not a libertarian.
"Free Wi-Fi is no more wrong than having free public libraries... or more relevantly, free internet at public libraries."
Why not free cars, houses, food, health care, computers, etc?
You're not a libertarian, just a selective socialist (I imagine you're selective for when it's beneficial to you, or when you simply don't understand how the principles of liberty and freedom might apply to a particular topic.
The problem with municipal WIFI (and why, as a consumer, I support bills like this to remind government of it's proper role) is something called "tyranny of the majority." Essentially the will of the majority is FORCED upon the minority. In this case the purchasing choise of the "majority" (purchase this service through the government instead of a company) is not only forced on the minority (who want to purchase it from the free market or don't want it at all) but the majority gets to subsidize their choice with the monies of those in the minority (to the majority this makes the service seem "free" or at least cheap...while the minority carries the burden).
At the end of the day, this is a service that can be provided by/within the free market, and is not important enough to warrent sendind people to jail and taking their posessions if they choose not to fund it...so it is not an appropriate service for the government to fund using tax dollars. If a city council wants to compete with other ISPs, they can quit the council, get some VC funding or a business loan, and start a business like everyone else.
Re:Govt. Subsidized Wifi is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
So the people and city of Altoona shouldn't be free to decide and handle their own affairs without interference from Harrisburg simply because you happen to agree with a particular state law, reguardless of what it does to individual rights within a municipality? The people of Altoona should have to justify themselves to, say, voters in Philadelphia (among other places) in order to take actions that would only directly effect themselves?
"The ILECs and cable companies use your right-of-way that you, the taxpayer, own."
They own it because self-styled libertarians believe that it's better to grant a for-profit private enterprise a monopoly on owning it rather than the government directly. Apparently, state-granted monopolies are magically somehow better-managed than state-owned infrastructure, even though the "free market" arguments apply to neither.
Being for-profit, they have no vested interest in opening their network to their competition. If the state own the actual wires directly (while not providing service on those wires), we wouldn't have this problem. But that's herecy in this age of privatization and deregulation.
Re:Well, this is depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
What is clear from the article and legislation being proposed is that SBC doesn't want competitors. Had you read the article, you would have read that there are not "a lot" of Wi-Fi providers duking it our in Texas, but only two, SBC and Verizon. It's quite clear that they want a duopoly, just like they have here in northern San Diego, and they'll spilt the state up between the two of them, just like they have here in Southern California. SBC gets some areas, Verizon gets the rest. There's no locale here where you get to choose between them. It's either one or the other. It's not pretty. High cost and shitty, surly service.
I wish you had a good point with the "do you want the government owning your ISP" argument, but sadly every ISP in America seems more than willing to comply with any government request for information or restrictions, legal or not. I just can't see how it would make any difference who my provider is, government or private, as they all operate under the same rules and restrictions.
Sadly, I can think of at least clear benefit from "the government" owning my ISP, in that they have little financial incentive to harvest and sell information about my browsing and buying habits as so many ISPs do.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's socialism via democracy, aka "tyranny of the majority." It's something the founding fathers of the USA were concerned about and tried to avoid by spelling out the limited powers of government in the constitutions of the nation and individual states. This bill is seeking to re-assert similar limitations on governments that seem entirely too willing to overstep their roles.
The tyranny of the majority is where the majority (or those in with the power) gets to force it's will on the minority. In this case it's public (socialized) funding of WIFI. If you're in a muni where the majority wants muni WIFI, you HAVE to pay for it. This forces out competition and stagnates the given market. Tyranny of the majority is not just seen with respect to economic freedoms, but also social freedoms. Freedom of speech, religion, etc have all been victims of the tyranny of the majority at one point in time or another. A good example is Germany in the 1930s.
Those who advocate for municiplal WIFI are essentially advocating for the same principles of government
it's an infrastructure project (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it fair for the cities to decide that it should be free and drive them out of business?
This is the same criticism that:
City-sponsored wifi isn't going to put anyone out of business. It's simply going to push the commercial providers to the next level of service offerings. That's the same as what happens in all the private vs. public examples I've given above. The government provides the baseline infrastructure that supports all kinds of interest in a given technology or service. Then the private sector extends that infrastructure with value-add features and quality that inspires consumers to pay for the private offerings. In the case of wifi, cities will probably put in 802.11g for now. Providers like Verizon can tout 802.11n for 100Mbps+ Wi-Fi with a monthly service fee.
The corporations are resisting this because they are missing a product lifecycle they can run consumers through (802.11g) that they can improve upon in subsequent years for people to upgrade to. Or, they'd like to offer multiple tiers of products at a range of prices to sell to rich and poor consumers. If the govt. carries the bottom end, corporations are somewhat limited to the upper tier offerings.
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
So how exactly are you a libertarian? You sound just like a liberal?
A libertarian does not believe in government tightly regulating businesses, generally because the government does a shitty job of it and screws something else up in the meantime.
Re:Well, this is depressing (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, with the huge exception that they are using money taken from you by threat of force to pay for this service for "everyone." This will lead to some people paying for wifi twice, and some people paying for it but not even needing or using it.
Re:Rather than asking why... (Score:5, Insightful)
You slept through economics class again, didn't you?
The reason why telephone service was regulated was not because it was the "primary method of realtime person-to-person communication" it's because phone service was believed to be a natural monopoly [wikipedia.org], meaning that costs could only be lowest with one, large firm serving everybody. But since that firm would be able to charge whatever it wanted or deny service to anyone it really felt like (it being the only firm in the market) natural monopolies must be heavily regulated to prevent that.
In theory, the inefficiency of regulation will less than either the firm would behave if totally uncontrolled or if left to competition (or outright socialization of the firm). Utilities, like water or power service for example, are ideal examples of natural monopoly -- we can't have many competing firms trying to install their own pipes or telephone poles.
Anyway, for much more than I can describe here, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly [wikipedia.org].
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Radio... (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it in other terms, the only reason cities are considering doing this is because it's so damn cheap to the point of being non-excludable. Do you really think a city-wide wifi WLAN would cost $29.99 per person per month?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, this is depressing (Score:3, Insightful)
No one's house is going to burn down because they have no internet access. This is not an issue of public safety, which is the original reason why most municipalities switched from commercial firefighters to public ones.
In short, SBC is asking the state of Texas to provide them with a legally-approved monopoly. And the state is doing it.
No, that's what telephone companies have had for the last 100 years. SBC is asking to not have local government installs wireless networks with tax payer dollars (or, in other words, in form new monopolies with our money).
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Free Wi-Fi not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that it is the SOLE purpose of business to make a profit, this makes total sense. If you're running a "business" that puts the "right" thing ahead of profits, you're no longer running a business, you're running a charity. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't expect businesses to operate by the same motives. If something can't be operated at a profit and it is in the overwhelming good interest of the public, then let the government operate it, but make no mistake, government will not do so as efficiently as the private sector could.
However, I'm also a non-Christian and I resent the enforcement of hardline Christian morality, such as the ban on gay marriage, that the Republican Party advocates.
A true Libertarian would tell government to just get the hell out of the marriage business completely. There's no reason for government to be sanctioning any types of marriage. Let the Government recognize some sort of civil union for whatever tax and legal purposes they need to. Let the churches define marriage - or the lawyers. What I'd like to see is for marriage to turn into a legal contract much like any other legally binding agreement. If Steve and Bill want to enter into this agreement, draw up a "marriage" contract and have them both sign it. Same with Bill and Hillary or Bill, Hillary, AND Steve. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as minors or incest isn't involved. Doesn't affect me in the least.