Verizon Seeks To Nix Fee-Based Municipal Wireless Grids 286
millermp writes "It looks like Verizon has succeeded in banning municipal WiFi networks in Pennsylvania. Since Verizon is looking to broadband service to fuel its growth, it calls municipal WiFi 'unfair competition.' This bill is following similar legislation earlier this year in Utah, Louisiana, and Florida." The bill has yet to be signed by Pennsylvania's governor, and as the story says, does not ban municipal wireless per se, but would place great restrictions on how it could be funded.
More Harm (Score:5, Insightful)
If the intention is to help poor residents to gain internet access as stated, the city may just offer the service for free, and makes up the costs from potential economic growth, maybe?
Otherwise, if this service is privatized, Verizon may face even more aggressive competition from the new WiFi operator, whose interest won't not be confined to just poorer neighborhoods and less densely populated ones.
Re:More Harm (Score:2, Interesting)
They didn't get cable until almost 1990 and they prevented RCN [rcn.com] from laying wire so as to protect comcast, ultimately bankrupting RCN.
The democrats that run Philly are looking for kickbacks and concessions. That's all this is about. It has nothing to do with 'poor residents', despite the rhetoric.
If they could pick up trash, I would be a little more accomodating, but they suck.
Verizon just doesn't want to compete against the people who a.) wri
Funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Tacoma, WA, the municipality has a public power utility and it added broadband cable, over the opposition of comcast, then at&t. The private sector all the sudden started doing capital investments that they were not going to be doing otherwise.
Government not supposed to be in business is pretty simplistic. You know the constitution provides in the preamble for the general welfare. Nobody much seriously claims public stock companies consider the general welfare. Some people like to espouse the Satanist doctrine that from the private greed comes the common good, but this seems to fail often.
Re:Funding? (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. Consitution does not apply since it is not the Federal Government providing the wireless, but a municipal government.
The U.S. Consitution explicitly enumerates what the Federal Government may do (or, to be more precise, what the Legislature may legislate) (See U.S. Consitution, Article 1, Section 8 [cornell.edu]. In theory, anything not enumerated is reserved for the states. That would include providing wireless service.
Re:Funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funding? (Score:3, Informative)
Public industury may be a bad idea, but the free market doesn't have any interest helping the poor, when I visit a poor neighbourhood I see betting shops, pawn brokers, check cachers, and the like, the free market at work, making a profit from those who really can't afford to be used as a profit making scheme.
Private enterprise needs to be regulated,
Re:Funding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Supposed to according to whom? Libertarians?
Most economist accept that the private sector fails to provide some goods and services (merit goods and public goods). The debate is exactly what falls into those categories, and that can change over time with the market and technology.
So, from the economic standpoint, there are some areas of business the governemnt is "supposed" to be going into, where the private sector won't supply at all, enough or at the right price, or consumers won't buy despite it being in their own interest and the public good.
From the politcal side, if a government is a democracy, they were clear when they were elected they were going to get into a certain business, and they go elected, they should be getting into it. Will of the people and all that.
Blanket statements like "the government is not supposed to be going into business" don't mean a whole lot.
Unfair competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfair competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except said in legislature-speak, of course.
Re:Unfair competition? (Score:2)
Re:Willing to pay for competition? (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon invested a lot in cables, and have been overtaken by technology. Too fuckin
I would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
"does this help the residents of the state recieve a service they desire, without asking too much of them in tax".
Instead of:
"does this hurt a crappy regional monopoly wring more cash from customer's wallet, or does it hurt that holy quest for profit".
Then again, I'm not a politician.
Justification to not compete (Score:4, Interesting)
Combine this with the fact that with a government group running it you will run afoul of all sorts of special groups demanding free access let alone those imposing their views on what is and what is not acceptable.
Don't think so, its not hard to shop for courts that favor one view or another.
Think about it, the first whine will be "Its for the children", then comes "they are a disenfranchised group", followed by "well of course group X should get a free ride". Until you finally have yet another government program sucking dollars out of your pocket to buy votes.
Corporations may not have your intrest in mind but at least they are an equal opportunity screw. I don't need another "airport" - as in - lets stick all of our cronies into that service to draw fat checks and provide no work other than being a crony.
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, it doesn't apply to roads, most people (though not some libertarians) agree that we should all be taxed as fairly as possible, and that the state and local governments should take care of building and maintaining roads. Roads can't be the only thing that should fall into that category, so it's only a matter of where the line is drawn.
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with the Internet. We all benefit by the Internet and what it has done to business efficiency, whether we personally have Internet access in our homes, or not.
Re:Justification to not compete (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not on to anything new here. This is the oldest line in the book of government (how to rule a people): tell them it's for "society as a whole".
The war on Iraq and its tens of thousands of civilian deaths benefits "society as a whole", right? Bush's religious charity program benefits society as a whole, right? Social security benefits society as a whole, right?
When the
Off topic question about gov't vs. private efforts (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations may not have your intrest in mind but at least they are an equal opportunity screw
After reading this and seeing similar comments on many different issues over the last year or so, I feel compelled to ask a question.
Let me frame this by stating that I'm Canadian and thus see nothing wrong with government taking initiative to dump money into new industries to at least start it off and have government in control of (i.e. running or heavily regulating) essential services.
The question is this... Why is it that in America, the private sector is placed on such a high pedastal?
I figure that looking to find the least common denominator of methods to provide a service or product for the population amounts to only an "equal opportunity screw" just seems totally cynical, wrong and scary to me.
I was reading someone else's take about the American mentality on health care and saw it summed up as something that individuals feel personally responsible for and would feel intruded if it became the government's domain. A friend from school was telling of a guy she dated from SC who felt that public transit was a government handout for the poor and lazy.
Is this just survival of the fittest in action? And if so, why do people let private industry run to the government for protection from such things like a community based wi-fi network? It might as well be SCO/MS/etc getting legislators to slap a tax on Linux/BSD and all OSS to 'even the playing field.'...
Re:Off topic question about gov't vs. private effo (Score:3, Interesting)
There are really two factors that help explain this phenomenon. One is the 'Horatio Alger Myth' which posits that in America anyone can strike it rich if they combine a strong work ethic with a frugal lifestyle. This demonstrably false belief permeates our society, and gives rise to a school of thought where wealth is equal to morality (If you're rich you must have worked hard and spent your money wisely)
The second factor i
Re:Off topic question about gov't vs. private effo (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're missing a third factor. The current generation in power was raised in the belief that if the Communists did it, then America should do the opposite. Americans (in general) have an attitude that everything is black and white. Middle ground is not an option because there is no middle ground.
Re:Off topic question about gov't vs. private effo (Score:3, Insightful)
I, pers
That's not how you create competition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I would think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, that kind of talk doesn't let politicians buy votes.
How long... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too (Score:5, Funny)
Verizon : I'm sorry . Your current community doesn't have a sufficient return on investment for us to build a high speed network in your area.
Community : Fine . Then we will have a community funded wireless network which is easily available with today's technology.
Verizon : No, you cannot do this!
Community : Why not ? You said you didn't want to invest in infrastructure in our community or that it would take 7-10 years even if you decide to do something.
Verizon : Well
What's worse (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the idea of a town saying we want to provide this service, and we can do it for a fraction of the cost. It reminds me of my college housing, where the collective purchase power of all the apartments was leveraged by the owner of the property to get us satelite tv for a few bucks a month, something like 80% off the normal price.
Re:Verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not compete? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the long run, if there's competition in the market, service qualities will go up and prices will go down. A government monopoly funded by tax dollars will give government style service with no incentive to keep costs down.
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
Such wi-fi networks will further connect those to the internet who cannot stand the dial-up speeds on an internet geared towards those with highspeed. There will be no such competition in any small town so don't expect to see verizon or other internet compa
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not cost effective for Verizon, how is it cost effective for the local government?
Re:Why not compete? (Score:5, Interesting)
The privates shouldn't have any say in what people want to do locally especially when economic growth hinges on being able to provide some sort of broadband access these days.
It's like saying to the locals "no you can't have cars because Mobile doesn't want to put in a gas station in their town."
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
THe other problem is that this isn't just cutting into some future service that one of the telcos wants to provide -- it will cut into service that they're already providing. They have to be concerned about people dropping their DSL or Ca
Re:Why not compete? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just looking forward to the day when connecting to the internet means putting an advanced wifi antenna (if they can ever beat the routing problems) on your roof and using an ad-lib connection which uses other peoples antenas to span the distances, and forgo the monthly cost all together. A one time purchase of hardware to create a network that is self expanding and self upgrading.
Re:Why not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least this time they would be doing something that you know about, so you could guestimate about what it would cost in equipment and administration to put it all together. It's just aps and routers. Access would be open if all the residents were on it so there'd be no need for encryption any stronger than what you use with a standard ISP. You
Re:Why not compete? (Score:4, Informative)
Do you know anything about economics ? NO ..... (Score:3, Informative)
Broadband is a communications network just like our government builds networks of roads that no private business would take on. Broadband and the internet should be public utilities.
By the way ,
Re:Do you know anything about economics ? NO ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to have a dozen players in the market -- nobody would argue that the soda market isn't competitive, despite there only being a few major players, or that home improvement stores (2 major players in the US -- Home Depot and Lowes) aren't fiercely competitive.
Presuming for a second that poor people need high speed internet in the same way that they need say food or shelter (a dubious proposition at b
Other unfair government services (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Other unfair government services (Score:2)
Re:Other unfair government services (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, Phoenix has one of the best fire companies in the nation and it's private by subscription. Also, don't forget all those volunteer fire companies in suburbs, small towns and rural areas. Their high level of service for the negligible price negates the need for most local governments to fund a fire company. Also, private security officers outnumber local police by five to one in this country. So, there is competition in providing police and fire services.
My point here is not to make you "wrong"
Re:Other unfair government services (Score:2)
Free? (Score:2)
You're also implying that all police forces are government-based. False.
Next you'll tell me the government provides us with free schooling. Ignore that I pay for it with my property taxes, and that I have no children attending those schools.
Then you'll be telling me that government provides us with the ambulances that get you
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also got a ticket for crossing the median, although the car was upside down when i crossed it.
That was totaly off topic, but my point was that anyone without health insurance would be bankrupt in an accident like that. I would much rather see my taxes go to fund more public health efforts and lost cost interent than to subsidize big corporations.
Governemnt is a nessecary evil. no cou.ld never get a private compnay to build higways or any other public infastructure without the price being prohibitve for most people.
See, this is the government on the one side... (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds more like Verizon can't beat the competition with market prices, so they seek to put the competition out of business. Of course, the competition is actually the government, so Verizon is going to have a hell of a time trying to beat them.
At the Federal level, the government should be responsible for very little. Protection of citizens, regulation of interstate/international commerce/etc. But on the local level, it is nice to have the community band together to solve local problems. Go Pennsylvania!
Re:See, this is the government on the one side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that means it is subsidised by the taxpayers. And as such, it stands far more chance of being regulated. The local equivalent of the FCC might be doing the filtering.
This is a sign of the times (Score:5, Funny)
Whats next? Microsoft suing [insert favorite Linux distro here] because their free operating system is unfair competition to MS? Pharmaceutical companies suing a charity that gives away free vaccines to babies because then the people won't buy as many of the competing brand vaccines?
Cheers,
Adolfo
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2)
He saved me the time of typing it out myself and it's a Troll?
It's not free.
you mean like schools? (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxing all to give to a few is not a new phenomenon, nor is it necessarily a bad thing.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments WORK. Over 4000 years of history laugh at you for suggesting otherwise. You think it is pure CHANCE that governments tend to get bigger? Revolution is just another form of evolution.
The question in this case is not about what is wrong with governments but where should governments spend the money they have. To me,building an infrastructure such as a completely wifi covered city, is something that has unknown future value but seems could very quickly end up benefiting a HUGE percentage of the population. But then I don't live in Philadelphia so what I like matters even less on how they spend their money.
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:3, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you don't drive on any roads, nor do you rely on any sort of fire, police, or EMS protection whatsoever. People like you should be flogged whenever you
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:2)
Seriously. You have to understand that it is never the job of the government to compete with business when business or community can deliver a service. This was part of the reason that the Post Office was privatized. Where it used to be impractical for business to compete in delivery across the entire nation, it became possible with newer transportation technology, and so the government forced the post office to become self-sustaining
Re:This is a sign of the times (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to write down a convincing argument, argue using reason, not your own prejudices. "Comrade?" Give me a break. The fact is that Verizon has a monopoly, which they have because they were granted it by the government. Does the municipal WiFi project compete unfairly? We can't tell. It's hopeless to try to sort it out at this late date.
What we can tell is that Verizon is doing a *terrible* job of providing broadband to its customers. My father has been waiting
This is bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians have a responsibility to the people they represent, not to making some CEO wealthy.
So, if my small town decides they want to use their collective purchase power and set up a wi-fi, then Verizon feels threatened? Unfair competition? How? Verison could lower their fee and be more competitive.
Re:The Unofficial Public WiFi (Score:2)
This is a good idea, but who would be the people to set it up and who would pay? The nice thing about local government is they could do it so it costs everyone a few pennies. Multiply that by 1000's of people and they have enough money. If a non-profit group wanted to start it up
Here's what's really unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here's what's really unfair (Score:2)
Re:You're missing the root cause (Score:2)
This is too bad to see. (Score:5, Insightful)
As if we needed another example of how corporations like innovation only when they are profiting from it, and will not stand in its way only if it does not interfere with their business model. It is especially a shame to see that this is Verizon, who I almost had some respect for after they stood up for their subscribers' privacy against the RIAA.
I've seen claims that the government-offered service would be inferior and too costly. If that's the case, Verizon has nothing to worry about-people will flock to them, and the government will kill off the project for lack of interest.
On the other hand, if it is possible to set up an inexpensive, or free, wireless network, across a whole city, publicly funded or otherwise, this is an interesting idea which needs to be explored, not stifled to grant a favor to a massive corporation. If it's a bad idea, it'll die off quite nicely on its own.
Re:This is too bad to see. (Score:2)
Oooooh! Online registration.
You'll never find a device driver or get a technical support person as fast as they can kill your ability to play a video game these days.
Re:This is too bad to see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fallacious. I pay for roads even if I don't drive a car, schools even if I don't have children, police officers even if I never need to be protected from a crime, and parks and open space even if I choose never to visit them. Government's job is to do things which benefit a large number of people, and yes, they do that through taxation. Because not every single person to whom a government service is available chooses to use it does not mean that that service should not be offered. This seems, however, to be a shining example of how a large-scale, citywide project could benefit a large number of people, including areas in which it might be unprofitable for a corporation to offer that service.
Re:This is too bad to see. (Score:2)
"would prohibit a government or any entity it creates from offering broadband for a fee."
"The city could provide the service for free, but it is unlikely to find a funding source for that, she said."
It looks to me that it is the users that will pay for the actual service used. What is the probl
Fiber to the home (Score:5, Informative)
Verizon is just a 500lb gorilla that can't see more than 2inches infront of its face!
Hey where's my (Score:2, Interesting)
Verizon screws PA and yet the legislative branch is still willing to bend over backwards for them.
Have public utilities. gone to fare? (Score:2)
Re:Have public utilities. gone to fare? (Score:2)
could we get the telecom and power companies out of the hair of the big commercials?
could we get the telecom and power COOPS out of the hair of the big commercials?
How does this equal success? (Score:3, Insightful)
delaying the inevitable? (Score:5, Interesting)
If.. (Score:2)
If ever (Score:2)
Fee based services (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fee based services (Score:3, Insightful)
bill does not prevent wifi as public good (Score:3, Informative)
Nowhere does it prevent municipalities from offering public networks such as the one already deployed in Altoona, PA.
comptetition isn't the word you are looking for... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are talking about areas,that mostly don't have high speed internet infrastructure. Why not? Because telecos haven't invested in poor urban neighborhoods. Why? No market.
We are talking about communities of people who already *don't pay* for internet, Verizon and most other ISPs recognize that.
I don't see how you can say there is no market for paid internet services, and then say that free interent services are competing.
One more thing, try to use your overpriced verizon wireless in a poor urban neighborhood, like those in Philadelphia, you think it will work?
I would say no. Verizon is trying to clamp down on the idea of free bandwidth. They are hiding behind the market making this a competition issue.
Free and For Sale are indeed two different things.
This is going to get me lynched (Score:2, Interesting)
I realise that this is probably going to get me beaten up, but why the hell is the city government planning on offering this service anyway? Surely the provision of broadband internet services for a fee is a job for a private company, not a job for the government.
Re:This is going to get me lynched (Score:2)
If it hasn't been done already I'd say the corps are dragging their feet to milk traditional ISPs for all they're worth. Bills like this only seek to inhibit a people which is finally saying,"We've had enough of this already!"
Typically, though
Re:This is going to get me lynched (Score:4, Informative)
Some people think that having broadband helps economic prospects. If that is true, and that Verizon and the other ISPs can't provide it, why let that be an excuse to hold back other parts of economic progress?
There are cities that provide utilities and happen to do them better than a for-profit company can do.
One more reason why... (Score:2)
Cheap WIFI (Score:2)
They can't even provide DSL to all their customers (Score:4, Informative)
Th problem with private networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Physical infrastructure for networks should always be publicly owned. This isn't to say that the services running on them should be publicly owned.
Eg. Roads. It is much more efficient for roads to be in the hands of a public entity that maintains them for the use of all services that run on them. In the case of roads, you can have both privately owned and publicly owned "services" running on them - for example, busses and cars can be privately owned for both personal use and to provide services such as fedex, public transport and emergency services. In the case of roads, if they were privatised, it would be extremly impractical for a competitor to start up a new road network that serviced the same area as an existing road network - apart from the cost, it would be very wasteful of resources.
Ideally, I think that TCP/IP networks should be the same as roads. The fundamental infrastructure, ie. the wires/airwaves should be in the hands of public non-profit entities, with private companies running their services on top of that, and paying a fee for usage in much the same way that you pay registration fees/fuel tax to pay for roads. Note that it is the actual transport medium I am refering to that should be in public hands - not those other neccesary components to complete the system. The roads and stoplights if you will, not the vehicles and petrol stations.
This would mean that the basic infrastructure is not monopolised by any one company, and in the case of wireless technologies, there is no wasteful competition for the limited spectrum.
The public body that maintains the network should also have a mandate to provide the network to all areas according to need, rather than profitablility, in much the same way roads are.
This is the most efficient way to get good broadband to all, and keep a healthy level of competition in the market. If the physical network is privatised, competition effectively comes to a halt.
Re:Hand over the freedom (Score:2)
Two words come to mind buddy first one starts with an F and the second starts with a T.
They have full control over the road to your front door, don't they? At any rate, they can tap your telephone when they want, and subphoena your ISP too, for that matter.
I am not saying they should neccesarily be your ISP - that could still be in the hands of private companies.
Eg. In Australia, Telstra owns the phone network - the physical lines etc. Telstra
Re:Hand over the freedom (Score:2)
*sigh* of course that should be last MILE.
Proof that spell checking doesn't save you from all evil
Fight Verizon! (Score:2)
That's why I get my internet access from Comcast.
Oh, wait...
Drat. I guess this won't happen [slashdot.org].
What happened to innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporate Criminals are winning and we do NOTHING! (Score:2)
It is unbelievable to me that there are so many fucking idiots on this board that think that we have to have private companies run everything and gouge everyone.
Have you people forgetten about vaccine shortage and how american companies don't try to make it because there is no profit incentive for them. That is why we need the government to run critic
plan killed here in Illinois (Score:4, Interesting)
Penn Residents Are Silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you not the state that levied a tax and paid Verizon 58 Billion dollars for a all fiber optic network and there is not one mile of fiber to anyone's homes in the state.
Now the come with your money and bitch that it would be unfair becuase cities that know they were ripped off were now forced to make their own provisions to provide network access to the general public.
That's okay your 58 billion went to installing the Fiber in my neighborhood in Texas and other neighborhoods in Florida, Ny, California. We were never taxed at all for it.
Next thing we'll see up there are toll roads that pay for road construction in other states.
Sheesh
Corporatism reigns supreme in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because of the power of propagnda. They have most of America in the grip of propaganda-based belief systems. Many young males are in the grip of the free-market-as-deity belief system. Others are in the grip of country-and-constitution-worship belief system.
In the aggregate, these Americans can be manipulated by pressing the right buttons during poltical campaigns, especially primary elections. By the time the general election rolls around, both candidates are always Corporatist shills, at least in the presidential election.
Really, I have to think that it is not only profit that keeps broadband from being reasonably priced in America. It may be that there is fear among the top of the corporatist hierarchy that once a critical mass of Americans can download video quickly over the Net, alternative distribution and creation systems may open up the path for leftist counter-propaganda. I think that if most Americans could just view a good video documentary series on the history of political propaganda in America, the grip of the corporatists could be shaken.
Here is a good book on the history of political propaganda in America. [amazon.com]
Answers from Pittsburgh (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Pittsburgh [pghwireles.net], there ain't much going on, 'cept at CMU [cmu.edu], and one of the local mom and pop shops [telerama.com]. There are a few players, but none who talkabout it -- it's taboo here, most people are happy with their dialup (Ugh!).
Verizon claiming "unfair competition" is absurd... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not it is actually a good idea for a city gov't to provide public Internet access (many pros and cons), Verizon's claim of "unfair competition" is absurd. Verizon et al has no guaranteed right to market any particular product free from overlap with any service that the government deems is in the public interest to provide as a gov't sponsored function. Will P.I.'s and security companies complain that the police force is unfair competition for its security and investigatory services ? Nope, no such right to assume a wide-open market exclusively for the commercial sector...
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
defense
shelter
water
food
clothing
health
electricity
heating / cooling
transportation
education
There's certainly enough whining out here about defense, so I'll skip that one. Do we have the shelter issue covered? In rural PA? How about Pittsburg? Are you sure?
The real poor need a lot more before they care about WiFi. If we're interested in really helping poor people, we need to focus our resources on them, instead of on feel-good policies that only help us feel good about ourselves.
In related news (Score:4, Funny)