Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Government Hardware Politics

Texas Wireless Ban Has Failed 408

Posted by Zonk from the one-state-with-market-opportunities dept.
chip rosenthal writes "The effort to ban municipal networks in Texas has failed. Texas House Bill 789 originally had provisions to ban muni wireless networks. The Senate passed a significantly rewritten version, without a ban. A conference committee failed to reach agreement, so the bill died when the Texas legislature adjourned this weekend."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Wireless Ban Has Failed More

Texas Wireless Ban Has Failed

Comments Filter:

  • Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by professorhojo ( 686761 ) * on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:35PM (#12685563)
    Close call. The attempt to forbid cities and towns from offering wireless services was seriously misguided.

    Public wireless is like roads and street lights. Like roads, public wireless access enables economic development. When a road is paved, houses and businesses spring up around it. When an urban area has street lighting, business and civic life continues into the night.

    Most streets aren't toll roads, and street lights don't have a fee per block. These services are generally accepted to provide public benefit above and beyond the revenue they would bring if they relied on fee-for-service funding.

    Networking is in an early stage, like street lights were a long time ago. Cities and towns ought to be able to make their own decisions about what will bring economic development to their area. Each municipality makes its own decisions about roads and public transportation. Similarly, the decision about whether and how to provide wireless services should be a local decision. We don't want to *prevent* cities and towns from choosing to provide wireless as a service that will incent additional economic activity. We don't want to mandate one model, for the whole state, in an early stage of development.

    • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:4, Funny)

      by stubear ( 130454 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:40PM (#12685619)
      "Public wireless is like roads and street lights."

      Apparently you do not drive in New England. If the condition of the roads is any indication of the conditon of municipal wirelsss here than I'd rathe rpay Verizon or Comcast for the service thanks. Unfortunately I wouldn't get the money back from the taxes they've taken out for the service.

    • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by goldspider ( 445116 )
      A lot of injustices are carried out in the name of "economic development". Just look at how local governments abuse eminent domain laws.

      Yes, I know it's popular around these parts to bash telco companies like Verizon, and many of you may see me as a "save the poor starving conglomerate" sympathizer.

      But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Funny)

        by EugeneK ( 50783 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:48PM (#12685693) Homepage Journal
        I so agree with you! We need to get rid of public water, libraries and fire departments. They are thoroughly squashing bottled water, bookstores, and security firms. The founding fathers intended the government to take care of a very limited set of duties, such as bombing Iraq, - not setting up wireless networks. Look in the Constitution - the word "wireless" does not appear ONCE.
        • I so agree with you! We need to get rid of public water

          We don't have public water where I live. A private corporation manages our water supply and is regulated by the municipal government. The city does manage wastewater and sewage, however.

          libraries

          When you locate a corporate library that would be put out of business by socialization, let me know.

          and fire departments

          Ditto.

          The founding fathers intended the government to take care of a very limited set of duties, such as bombing Iraq

          Yes

        • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:30PM (#12686162) Homepage Journal
          Look in the Constitution - the word "wireless" does not appear ONCE.

          Maybe because the Constitution's authors didn't have computers or wireless networks?

          Section 8 [house.gov] of the Constitution does say the government should build physical infrastructure like Roads as well as communication infrastructure like Post Offices. Seems very similar to building wireless infrastructure.

          • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:2, Funny)

            by EugeneK ( 50783 )

            Maybe because the Constitution's authors didn't have computers or wireless networks?


            Wrong again, Mr. America Hater - the founders knew that our nation was blessed among the nations and would invent wireless networks, among many other marvels, and they wiseless refused to mention them in the Constitution. This is why we know they did not intend the government to be involved in regulating or owning them.

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:48PM (#12685696)
        What gives your private business the right to a profit if it can't even do better than the government? You know, the infamously inefficient bureaucracy with the customer service department staffed by bona fide Vogons?
        • I apologize for my hippie viewpoint, but in my experience a government situation will be inhabited by 50% Vogons in search of an easy paycheck, and 50% people who are at least mildly competent if not excessively so. Government offices lose out due to politics, and their best people leaving to make better money, but often someone selfless will be making the world a better place in them. I respect government workers who do it as a public service or final choice both, and find it mildly offensive that you're
        • What gives your private business the right to a profit if it can't even do better than the government? You know, the infamously inefficient bureaucracy with the customer service department staffed by bona fide Vogons?

          My private business doesn't get to tax people and use their money to finance a business endeavor whether they want to use my services or not.

          • My private business doesn't get to tax people and use their money to finance a business endeavor whether they want to use my services or not.

            And your private business is just like verizon, which doesn't get any tax money, either.

            Oh, wait.

            • And your private business is just like verizon, which doesn't get any tax money, either.

              Oh, wait.

              I can't respond intelligently to your statement unless you clarify it. What government tax money are you referring to? Businesses receive tons of government money for a number of different reasons. Which are you referring to?

        • if it can't even do better than the government

          NO business, large or small, can compete against the government.

          The government is hardly innefficient. It makes money by doing absolutely nothing (except enforcing the tax code). In fact the government tends to be paid large sums of additional income by lobbying groups representing the interets of large corporations looking to get government contracts using our taxed income to fill their deep pockets.

          If you don't see the cycle here: bribe the politicia

          • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:41PM (#12686297)
            You're taking a tremendously oversimplified approach to the interaction between the public and private sector in society.

            First of all, lots of private companies compete successfully against the government. People buy bottled water (and other commercial drinks) when the only drink anyone really needs is the government-provided tap water. But it's not as simple as all that, either.

            Once upon a time people had radios, but there wasn't much of a power grid. So to run your radio, you had to buy a battery from someone, and pay them to charge it when it ran out. So of course people made money on radio batteries.

            When local governments decided to subsidize the installation of a comprehensive power grid, the citizens were happy that they didn't have to buy batteries anymore. I'm sure the private companies selling people batteries complained to no end that Big Brother was killing the little guy and so on, but nobody listened.

            Of course, the government's decision to support something that wouldn't return a profit anytime soon led to an entire industry of home electronics. Time and time again, the government's infrastructure fuels private industry growth.

            • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Insightful)

              by mjh ( 57755 )

              Of course, the government's decision to support something that wouldn't return a profit anytime soon led to an entire industry of home electronics. Time and time again, the government's infrastructure fuels private industry growth.

              This is a fallacy first described by Frederic Bastiat [bastiat.org], but later explained very clearly and simply by Henry Hazlitt [freedomkeys.com].

              The growth of the electronics industry certainly did come about as a result of widespread delivery of electricity. But you don't know what hidden costs came

            • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Informative)

              by conradp ( 154683 )
              It all sounds nice, but your history is not quite accurate. The government did not invent electrical power or lay the first power lines. It was started in a lot of places independently by private companies arising to provide power. In some places local groups formed non-profit co-ops to provide power to its members. Eventually governments decided it was a good idea to take over the business so they could achieve a desired social good - providing power to everyone - not to spur an industry or replace batteri

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JFitzsimmons ( 764599 ) <justin@fitzsimmons.ca> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:50PM (#12685717)
        What gives the private sector the right to squash any public business just because they believe they can do the job better?

        The major difference here is that the public would be competing at worst with the private sector; not squashing it through legislature. If this bill had gone through, the private would have squashed the public in such a style. Your statement just doesn't stand up.
        • Private business cannot compete with government because private business must EARN revenue, whereas government need only raise taxes.

          And why would people pay for a private service when they're already paying for the municipal service?
          • For the same reason people use toll roads when the public ones lead to the same place? Because the private offering is good enough to justify spending money on it.
      • Problem here is that the big corporations aren't being "squashed".

        If you don't like the idea of tax payer funded wireless internet service then vote in people who share your views. There isn't any reason that Verizon (or any other telco/cable provider) can't provide service as good or better for a very similar fee. Hell, the local government STILL has to go through the TELCO to get their connection anyway!

        (Well, maybe not the local telco, but whoever 'owns' the local backbone that runs through their nei
        • "If you don't like the idea of tax payer funded wireless internet service then vote in people who share your views."

          Democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. I have a right to the money I earn. The majority of people don't have the right to take it from me for their pet projects just because they're in the majority.

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by EnderWiggnz ( 39214 )
        who the fuck is business to say that we, the people, can not band together and create a better, cheaper more efficient system than they can?
        • who the fuck is business to say that we, the people, can not band together and create a better, cheaper more efficient system than they can?

          That's one of the ways that businesses get started in the first place.

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by safari-surfer ( 888239 )
        But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?

        True enough but there are two sides to that coin. Why do I have to be deprived of this service because I happen to live in a less populated area which caused some some corporate beancounter to conclude that putting in the requiered infrastructure would not be profitable enough to bother with it? I'd rather have a municipal network than none at all. The idea that Businesses should be

        • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by yorkpaddy ( 830859 )

          Why do I have to be deprived of this service because I happen to live in a less populated area which caused some some corporate beancounter to conclude that putting in the requiered infrastructure would not be profitable enough to bother with it?

          If you have such a big problem with corporate beancounters, why not form your own corporation and serve your market. Maybe you are right, and you will make a lot of money. You are probably wrong though. If people like you truly value a fast connection to the

      • don't forget that the government is elected or directed by the people.

        so the will of the citizens is "screw verizon, let's have municipal wi-fi", why shouldn't they be allowed ? (of course given they don't break any constitutional/human rights article).

        • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by goldspider ( 445116 )
          Fine, as long as the people who don't want to use the municipal wi-fi aren't compelled to pay for it.

          But of course, we know that's not how taxation works.

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Big_Al_B ( 743369 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:12PM (#12685943)
        But what gives the government the right to squash any private business

        Interesting way to frame the discussion. It's completely backwards and inaccurate, but interesting in a fun way.

        How does a muni providing a value-add wireless communications service designed to attract commercial and residential development translate to "squashing" private business? That's a really bass-ackwards perspective, since the underlying goal is to attract new businesses and residents.

        It's no different than parks, festivals, community centers, bike paths, etc.

        just because they believe they can do the job better?

        You've assumed a false proposition that muni's want to compete with, and beat, private companies. This doesn't make any sense, as it contradicts ubiquitous goals of community growth and economic prosperity (especially for any local business owners holding prominent public offices.)
      • A community is an economic entity like others are too: single persons, charities, corporations. A community is even (like a business) out to make money: tax money, fees, money from business it owns. Why should we exclude a community from doing business? There is only one valid reason: monopoly considerations. If a community is able to control a whole branch of business because of a monopoly in another branch, it may be bad, because the service in the first branch may be detoriated but there is no business m
      • Normally I'm not in favour of municipal wireless, but I'm actually more against having a law banning it.

        In most cases I think it would be a stupid waste of money, but in those cases the citizens of that town should make the decision for themselves. At least having this option could be used as a bargining chip if the telcos aren't providing adequate services.

        Now I wouldn't really be against a law banning municipal wireless funded with tax dollars. That would seem a fair compromise. I think municipal wir

      • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @03:45PM (#12686996)
        Yes, I know it's popular around these parts to bash telco companies like Verizon, and many of you may see me as a "save the poor starving conglomerate" sympathizer.

        But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?

        Why do you think that Verizon is a regular 'private business'? Verizon's entire existance is because of special privileges government gave it to provide service with no competition. Verizon couldn't innovate itself out of a paper bag. Verizons most recent innovations are $1 ring-tones. Our telecom system is an infrastructure like roads/bridges. Verizon does not see it that way, they just want to be profitable. If that business model was used in the beginning a large portion of the country would not have telephones today. I think enough years have passed to realize the failures of DSL rollout. Verizon wouldn't make ISDN affordable in many states. They fought the digital revolution. Then with DSL they fought to only have to serve 'easy to service' customers (lobbied hard to make DSL an optional service). They haven't made DSL accessible to all or in areas with SLC (subscriber loop carrier) service where it will cost them more. They don't feel compelled to care about those folks. Meanwhile all the equipment they are using to exploit their customers were paid for many time over by the rate increases they fought for. The subscribers paid many times over for the digital switches and SS7 networks, but rather than benefit from those new services, they were turned around and used to extract $4 a month for Caller ID (flipping a bit in the software we paid for many times over).

        If the same profit only business model is taken with Wireless we will continue to see only markets served that are the most profitable. The restof the markets will be left out.

      • Re:Thank GOD. -- Doing Better (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @03:46PM (#12687003)
        But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?

        Uh, because they can do it better?

        Consider, if the town doesn't provide competative service then no one will use it. Just because the Telco's exercise monopoly or near monopoly control over local telephone service does not entitle them to a monopoly over broadband as well.

        In fact, the Telcos aren't providing adequate broadband service now, because if the were the municiple option wouldn't even be under consideration. That should be self-evident to everyone.

        Plus, this is an issue of local control. Citizens have the greatest amount of control over their smallest, most local, entities -- in this case towns. I would expect that only towns that want their local government to provide broadband will actually go ahead and do so.

        And this is the way it should be.

    • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jdreed1024 ( 443938 )
      and street lights don't have a fee per block

      Actually, in lots of places, the utility company owns the streetlights, and the municipality has to pay not only for the electricity, but also to lease the lights. In New England, cities and towns are gradually buying the lights back from the utility companies, but it's not that cut-and-dried.

    • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BillEGoat ( 50068 )
      Public wireless is like roads and street lights
      Unlike roads and street lights, internet access has significant free-speech issues. Can I offer products for sale? Can I use it to browse pr0n? Can I use muni-wireless to host an evangelical church website? Can the government roll out VoIP and compete with the local phone companies?

    • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekee ( 591277 )
      "Public wireless is like roads and street lights."

      No it's not. The argument for cities controlling roads is that it's a large resource that should be controlled by one entity for efficiency. Similar arguments are made for power and phone line. Wireless, on the other hand, lends itself well to competition. New technologies, such as WiMAX, lend themselves well to low cost competitve wireless market.

      Muni wireless will kill that, and you'll be left with whatever underfunded half-assed, system your local govt
    • Best first post ever.
    • Most streets aren't toll roads, and street lights don't have a fee per block. These services are generally accepted to provide public benefit above and beyond the revenue they would bring if they relied on fee-for-service funding.

      Laying sidewalk and sewer is always payed for by the property owners along the spacific road, not the population as a whole. Build a hous too far from a pole, you'll pay for that too.

    • Re:Thank GOD. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Rostin ( 691447 )
      Public wireless is like roads and street lights. Like roads, public wireless access enables economic development. When a road is paved, houses and businesses spring up around it. When an urban area has street lighting, business and civic life continues into the night.

      With a couple of important differences.

      1. Were it not for government involvement, it's hard to see why streetlights or roads would have been built. It's doubtful that the interstate highway system we have now would have emerged if it had b

  • Persistence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lead Butthead ( 321013 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:37PM (#12685587) Journal
    How many want to bet that it will be back in the next session? The persistence of corporate greed should never be underestimated.

    • Re:Persistence (Score:4, Informative)

      by chip rosenthal ( 74184 ) <chip@unicom.com> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:41PM (#12685626) Homepage
      This article [statesman.com] (annoying registration required) quotes the HB 789 sponsor as saying he will try again in two years (next legislative session).

    • Re:Persistence (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chibi Merrow ( 226057 )
      Nor should the government's capacity for graft and bungling be forgotten. Municipal wireless isn't automatically a Good Thing(tm).
      • Generally speaking, private companies can be just as corrupt and inefficient as governments. (That's because there's never a shortage of corrupt and inefficient people.) It's just that these qualities tend to manifest themselves differently in companies and governments.

        "Graft & Bungling"... damn. Try saying that out-loud several times in a row - just gets funnier every time. Kind of sounds like it could be the name of a legal firm.
      • Nor should the government's capacity for graft and bungling be forgotten. Municipal wireless isn't automatically a Good Thing(tm).

        Not that this affects me in any direct manner, but does someone want to explain to me how the world will end if one or more cites be allowed to set up muni-wifi. Then you could wait a few years and compare the municipal ones with the private ones.

        Then you'd have some hard evidence as to which was working better. Without data, everyone is reduced to arguing from faith, mak

    • Municipal wireless isn't just bad for Evil Conglomerates. It's got the potential to be bad for a lot of ordinary folks.

      1. A lot of people don't have computers, let alone a new enough one to have wireless NIC, likely due to economic reasons. Why should they be saddled with the additional burden of providing service to people who can afford newer computers?

      2. What if the wireless service ends up like many municipal roads? Would people still be forced to pay for the crappy service? They wouldn't be abl
      • In short, municipal wireless has a lot of potential to be bad for low-income families, and is anticompetetive. Slashbots hate corporate monopolies; why do they support government monopolies?

        Because socialism is believed to be better for the "working man" than capitalism. I strongly disagree with this conclusion, but that's what a lot of people think.

    • " How many want to bet that it will be back in the next session? The persistence of corporate greed should never be underestimated."

      The real greed I see is a bunch of /.er who live in their parents basement who want free wireless access since it really will be free for them as they pay no taxes.
    • The savemuniwireless mailing list kept us all informed of what politicians to email at what times.

      I emailed those politicians told them I was going to work for/donate to their opponents when they came up for reelection, if they voted for HB 789.

      Now we need to target Phil King, of Weatherford. He is the slimy corporate whore who sponsored hb 789.

      We should probably raise money to run ads informing his district constitutents about how he sold out to SBC, et al as a corporate whore.

      Here is the url to the W [weatherforddemocrat.com]
      • So I guess this is the modern answer to carpet bagging? How about this: You worry about defeating the representatives in YOUR district that you disagree with and let others decide who they want representing them. Believe me, you wouldn't be happy if I started trying to get people elected where you live...

  • Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy@gma ... minus herbivore> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:38PM (#12685601) Journal
    Last thing we need is more dumb telecom legislation.

    Now if congress would get off their ass and put together a real bill that governed fiber bandwidth intelligently, we'd be in business.

    Seriously, we need to pull the rug out from under the damn cable companies. They're making a mint prentending they're not in the same business as phone companies (moving info), and the laws support it.

    • Re:Good. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kannibal_klown ( 531544 )
      Agreed.

      In fact, my town is getting fed up with Comcast.

      Our town actually has a petition going around for Comcast. Their internet service has been going down town-wide quite a lot this past year. When they first started offering it around here they promised the town they'd pay restitution for downtime.

      They've apparently stopped keeping their promise. Their cable tv is pretty bad in many parts of town as well.

      They have no problem taking our money, but when it comes time to put up they're nowhere to be
      • Then I suggest that you get off your ass and sue Comcast. Apparently television and Internet service is less valuable to the population than phones and putting up with downtime.

  • Good deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by poofyhairguy82 ( 635386 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:46PM (#12685671) Journal
    As a Texan, I'm glad that the last bits of that last session were spent trying to do more important things like finding funding for schools. The whole thing seemed like entity was trying to slip it through so when it was found (and called out) the thing was pretty much dead in the water. I am glad that they didn't mess with the current system of telecommunications- one of my favorite things about Texas is the pretty fast broadband that I have in a pretty rural area. Touching anything might kill the golden goose.

  • usage policies (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bionic-john ( 731679 )
    asusming that no municipality has thier own copper or fiber to the internet - they must be using one of the telecom's, which could then limit the usage of anonymous connections in thier usage policy. Which of course would need to be enforced. Its like the cable company, I can physically wire all my neighbors off my one connection and pay $x for each additional box and hence save $$ on each install tht was no longer needed - but that is against the usage policy. same thing -0

  • When does the socialist fantasy ever break? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:50PM (#12685720)
    Internet access is not, never has been, and should not be considered a basic public service.

    The Internet is a medium of communication for individuals and groups, organizations, and companies, people and assemblies of all kinds. As a medium of communication, putting ownership and control of access to it in the hands of government is a very very bad idea that relies on a false idea that the government can be trusted because it is the government which gives us rights and therefore will protect them on any service it provides.

    This nation, as with all other nations of humans, has a long history of illustrating just the opposite. Government descends from our basic rights as humans, not the other way around. We make right of our right to free will to choose to organize and co-operate under governance, not to exist at the leisure of it.

    Governments inherently being creatures of our darker tendencies and mob rule, are not and never have been given inherently towards respecting or protecting our rights, but ever seek to intrude upon them and limit them.

    Yet despite all the socialist alarm bells about the present president turning this nation into the bastard offspring of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, the same people all too often seem to think that government should provide the conduit through which we express ourselves. If this be the case, then let us turn over all the printing presses, computers, word processors, typewriters, phones and phone service and paper supplies and all other mediums of communication right now to the government.

    Anyone trust that the government will distribute these mediums as best fits our rights and needs or would they do as they more often do, limit, choke, control?

    Internet service by government is to put that access in the hands of politicians and politics. Two things that should be kept as far away and have as little contact as possible with it. Putting my tax dollars on this is tantamount to forcing me to contribute to something destined to become embroiled ina civil rights clusterf*ck of all time in the near future. Let us cut to the chase and not go there in the first place.
    • Your comment is off topic.

      No one is talking about giving their routers to the federal, state, or county government. The law that was passed will not constrain private internet service providers. It doesn't matter what you do or do not trust the government to do with your internet access.

      If some municipal government in Texas attempts to regulate ISPs, they'll have the FCC to answer to. Which, if you think about it, should irk the fuck out of y'all states-rights types.
    • Internet access is not, never has been, and should not be considered a basic public service.

      The Internet is a medium of communication for individuals and groups, organizations, and companies, people and assemblies of all kinds. As a medium of communication, putting ownership and control of access to it in the hands of government is a very very bad idea that relies on a false idea that the government can be trusted because it is the government which gives us rights and therefore will protect them on any se

    • Post Office (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PapaPhonez ( 861268 )
      Try replacing 'internet' in your statement with 'post office' and see how absurd it is. Providing public access to the internet is NOT the same as controlling internet access. People are free to get their internet connection from a private enterprise, and if the government begins instituting draconian laws governing the use of public internet access, they will.
    • Internet access is not, never has been, and should not be considered a basic public service.

      Why not? It wasn't 10 years ago, and maybe it isn't now, but it sure will be soon. What percentage of your shopping do you do online? When was the last time you picked up a phone book? It will take some time, but soon those who don't have internet access will be at a severe disadvantage to those who do. Are you advocating that we deny the government the right to provide this service to those who can't aff

    • Re:Does the anti-government fantasy ever break? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eeyore-on-thorazine ( 877293 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @03:03PM (#12686546)
      Spoken like a true zealot... never-the-less, I shall try.

      1. The bill would have PREVENTED local government from offering these services. The fact that it failed to pass is , in no way shape fashion or form, a mandate that local governments SHOULD provide it.

      2. In the current system, a voter referendum is still required for any city to proceed. Remind me again how we've extended the power of government beyond previous limits?

      3. Most muni broadband/wireless projects are funded via bond-issue, open access fees and user subscription fees. Relatively few of them rely on tax dollars to build or maintain the system. Those that are funded by tax dollars almost universially are required (by law) to get voter approval before work can even begin. You do vote, right? You know, that thing we do to determine who governs us, and what they are allowed to do?

      4. This is not an issue of 'The Government' trying to trample the rights of 'The Individual' or 'Free Enterprise'. It is an issue of preventing 'Big Government' (state) from preventing 'Little Government' (local) government trying to spur economic development (which is in its own interest as well) by providing services that provide value to citizens and businesses, but aren't lucrative enough to interest private enterprise (in this case, limited monopolies... I notice you didnt scream too much about them manipulating the individual by creating artifical scarcity/demand).

      5. Take off your tinfoil hat and realize that not all aspects of government are bad or irrational. It is true that our form of government is subject the excesses of it's representatives, but it will also adjust itself (given the opportunity and an interested populace) - which is better than most.

      This was an arbitrary law limiting municipal governments' ability to provide an important service in an underserved area. It takes nothing away from constituents except for their right to decide how their corner of the world is governed. It EXPANDED the grasp of government, instead of narrowing it. It artifically limited the rights of the local populace to choose their relationship to their government at the bequest of major commercial interests.

      6. Before posting on an issue you obviously know nothing about, take an hour to familiarize yourself with it JUST A BIT. Like most things in life/government there is typically a great deal more involved than is immediately apparent, and releveant to your personal agenda. I li ve in texas, and I know what this law meant, and you'll forgive me if I prefer to be able to choose for myself what I allow my local government to do with my own vote!

    • Re:When does the socialist fantasy ever break? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by learn fast ( 824724 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @03:14PM (#12686654)
      Did you notice:

      * They're not banning access to the internet from non-municipal sources. This is not giving the government "ownership and control of access" to the internet. This is not analogous to "turn[ing] over all the printing presses" etc. to the government. It's like saying that because the FBI has a web site, this means that the government is controlling web sites, so therefore they are impeding our rights because everyone should be able to have a web site yet they control web sites.

      * These are the governments of towns and cities (AKA "municipalities"). This is not The Government that could send in the jack-booted thugs at any moment that we've all been hearing so much about. One wonders what you would think if the state government successfully banned city governments from offering wireless access? That's a government, too, and that shouldn't be trusted...

      * There is a scuff on your tin foil hat. I recommend Stop & Shop "heavy duty" tin foil as it is slightly thicker and lasts much longer. Remember to keep the shiny side pointed away from your head.

      FYI.

  • The Fence.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by timtwobuck ( 833954 )
    I'm really on the fence with this one, for the record I am a geek, with wireless access in my residence, and would definetly use it if offered by a muncipality.

    I understand how free wifi would potentially bring boom to a growing economic area, but should we all pay for it out of pocket?

    Afterall, we aren't paying for the water / sewage / electricity / heat of growing businesses, why should we pay for their internet?

    But then there is this... if we might be better off paying for it from a private c

  • Nick of Time (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:52PM (#12685736) Homepage Journal
    It looks like the telco cartel bribing^Wlobbying the Texas Senate ran out of minutes, and got disconnected before closing the deal.

  • Too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ebrandsberg ( 75344 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:54PM (#12685761)
    802.11b is a very poor means of delivering bandwidth to anybody. Because of interference from cordless phones, even inches away from my AP, I can't get a clean connection through many times. This type of interference I've experienced on several brands of AP's with several different wifi adapters, and they all experience the problems at the same time. Attempting to make use of 2.4Ghz for utility style bandwidth deployment is a waste of government money and time, better suited to other projects.

    On the other hand, I don't believe that state governments should be telling the local governments what to do like this, as it is clear that this is a move by the commercial companies to keep a niche market where they can keep money. ON the other hand, why CAN'T they make money deploying this stuff.

    • Indeed (Score:2)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      However, 802.16 is coming and if it pans out anything like the way it could, things will get very interesting.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:56PM (#12685789)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • As someone living in Texas... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `epopcitsonga'> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:59PM (#12685813) Journal
    I'm quite disturbed at the number of moronic bills that have been passed just this session.

    First, they banned same sex couples from adopting children -- most sinister is allowing the state to monitor the activities of foster parents to make sure they're straight.

    Second, they've banned "sexy cheerleading". Yes, that right. They took time out of their legislative session to vote on a bill banning public high schools from cheers and outfits people might consider appropriate.

    You can learn a lot about your own state sometime just by watching the Daily Show.
    • Second, they've banned "sexy cheerleading". Yes, that right. They took time out of their legislative session to vote on a bill banning public high schools from cheers and outfits people might consider appropriate.

      Considering that the public schools are funded by the property taxes of the people who live in the school district, if those people don't want cheerleaders wearing inappropriate outfits or performing inappropriate dances, I don't think it's unreasonable that the legislation disallow it. I think

    • Re:As someone living in Texas... (Score:5, Informative)

      by BenEnglishAtHome ( 449670 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:24PM (#12686072)

      Uh, no. The bans on lewd cheerleading and gay foster parents failed to pass [chron.com]. The linked page provides a quick list of some of the things that passed and didn't in the last Texas legislative session. Some of the items are pretty funny. Or pretty sad, depending on your POV.

      A quick note to everyone from outside Texas - We have a part time legislature. It meets for 140 days every two years. The standard joke in the state is that we'd be a hell of a lot better off if they met for 2 days every 140 years.

  • Premium ISPs still better (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nytewynd ( 829901 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:01PM (#12685838)
    Providing free wireless isn't going to suddenly make the normal ISPs go into bankruptcy. A free wireless network would be nice if you have a laptop in a park or something, but it isn't going to cut it for home use.

    First of all, the security is terrible on wireless networks. I would not allow anyone in my house to connect their PC to a wireless city-wide network. You would have to lock down the PC to the point where it was barely usable anyway.

    Secondly, you would still want a home network in most cases. Unless you set up a PC to act as your wireless access point, and made it into a hardcore firewall/router you wouldn't have the kind of security or network design you wanted. It wouldn't be very convenient to have all of your devices floating around in a public access WAN.

    Last but not least is speed. I don't think I'll be getting the 1M download rate I currently enjoy with cable on a municiple wireless connection.

    If the city is sellign this as a way for the average user to have an internet connection they are sadly mistaken. They might say it is as easy as connecting, which it is. The people that would want the simplicty of connection are the same ones that don't have a clue how to secure themselves, therefore they would be worse off in the end.
  • ...On the other hand, it is hurting to see that in a land that encourages free private enterprise in addition to public service, the proponents of these failing idea(s) do not even seem to see that what they are doing goes against this fundamental ideal!

    No wonder we are no longer competitive as a nation and studies are suggesting that if the trend continues, up to one-half of the USA will be "foreign" owned in 25 years!

  • And I helped make it happen! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:05PM (#12685879) Journal
    The savemuniwireless mailing list kept us all informed of what politicians to email at what times.

    I emailed those politicians told them I was going to work for/donate to their opponents when they came up for reelection, if they voted for HB 789.

    Now we need to target Phil King, of Weatherford. He is the slimy corporate whore who sponsored hb 789.

    We should probably raise money to run ads informing his district constitutents about how he sold out to SBC, et al as a corporate whore.

    Here is the url to the Weatherford Democrat [weatherforddemocrat.com], the newspaper for the biggest city in his district.

    I say we make an example of this whore Phil King by raising money over the Net to defeat him when he runs for reelection/office again. He will serve as an example for the other corporate whores. With the internet we can focus all our whore-hating dollars on some whore like King.

    This guy is just a texas state govt representative. It is not all that big an office. We do not need to raise all that much money or have all that huge an effort in order to make an example of him by kicking him out of office.

  • Many problems with muni wireless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:08PM (#12685911) Homepage
    If it is "free" (tax supported) or not is pretty much immaterial. Has anyone thought that the service would be actually provided by the city? Hardly - they are going to contract it out. Just like in Tempe, AZ.

    Let's say they maintain administration of it, because it is "theirs". Do you really like the idea of the same ISP that you are using also paying the Chief of Police? Wouldn't that lead to a terrific conflict of interest sometimes?

    How could there be multiple providers? There really isn't much room for effective sharing of physical space by competing 802.11 transceivers. While it probably wouldn't push Starbucks off the air, you certainly would not have Verizon buying pole space to have their transceiver next to the municpal one - this would be an enforced monopoly because the frequencies are a finite resource. So much for "competition." As for keeping the major providers out of it, whom exactly do you think is going to get the contract to provide the service, anyway?

    All of this is just a fun way to take your money for a service that you probably won't get to use - because it will service the downtown area. So unless you live and/or work there, you just get to pay for it in your taxes. Think they are going to tax the downtown people extra to pay for it and not everyone else? Come on, you did think that, didn't you?

    • I have pretty mixed emotions about governments putting Internet feeds in place. I can understand the justification, particularly for low-income families, but wouldn't a better solution be to come to some sort of an agreement with ISPs over providing some sort of partial funding so that a low-income family could get a wireless connection (or cable or whatever) at a discount price? It's still not great, but it's a helluva lot better than putting bureaucrats in charge of an effective government-controlled mo
  • Oh thank God. I was afraid Texas was going to have a hard time justifying censoring broadband.

    But if it's state run, that's the perfect excuse.
  • Good thing, too! No, I doubt that municipalities can provide better Internet than ISPs, but it should not be ISPs, iLECs, or anyone else who determines what works in this area. I read somewhere that it costs less to install a wireless network in a City, than it does to supply trashbags. Verizon needs to be stopped.

  • Only an idiot would think muni wireless is good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:18PM (#12685995)
    So we have muni wireless. What happens? The govt. subcontracts the job out to someone like Verizon, who now has a monopoly on wireless in your area. And wireless is a technology that allows for competition among multiple telcom companies. Great idea, idiots. Lets create an artificial monopoly just so I don't have to pay for wireless access (oh wait I do through taxes).
  • Now is the time to get with your local governments and start building muni wifi networks, even if it's just a single hotspot fed by a DSL connection. The Texas legislature only meets every other year. Two years should be enough to get local laws passed and funding procured.

    Why is this important? Even the most draconian ban (that could pass both houses) would have to grandfather in existing networks.

    It's time to get cracking.

  • Muni-Wifis not banned != Only Muni-Wifis (Score:3, Insightful)

    by balaam's ass ( 678743 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @03:14PM (#12686659) Journal
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this means is that municipalities are not PROHIBITED from setting up wireless networks?

    That means that, if you don't like the idea of a municipal wifi network in your area, you can STILL fight it via political activism in your local government?

    I've seen a number of arguments in this thread about why muni-wifis are a bad idea (inefficiency, discourage competition, not an essential function of government, not a "need" of all citizens, etc), but I haven't read any actual advocacy for a state-wide ban prohibiting munipilatities from deciding for themselves whether to offer wi-fi or not... So, much of the "hubub" here seems misplaced.
  • Free wireless access is absolutely un-American and the bill in question is absolutely on the right track. What good is information, after all, if someone isn't profiting from access to it? Might as well let people borrow newly published books for free from a public institution, or get their education for free! What are these liberals thinking?

Slashdot Top Deals

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Close