Free Wi-Fi Threatened? 586
jasonmicron writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting that if certain state officials have their way, cities in the state of Texas will no longer be able to offer free WiFi to their citizens. This could set a dangerous precedent if passed, as broadband providers could start lobbying officials in the other 49 states to ban free WiFi as well. According to the article, Pennsylvania has already fallen victim to such a law but it excluded Philedelphia due to the city's 'existing efforts.'"
I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me again why the government needs to be able to get into the free-WiFi business.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe when it's all locked up in private hands you'll see rates more akin to those of satellite or cable TV.
Why should taxpayers fund Public Libraries when there's perfectly good bookstores around to sell them books and magazines, eh?
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
I asked my local Barnes & Noble for the annual Connecticut Legislative Record, an issue of Consumer Reports from five years ago, volume 'S' of an encyclopedia, and the one-time printing of a book on the history of my town, but they didn't have any of those. They wouldn't let me borrow their videos, either.
I see your point, but in this particular case, the bandwidth is a commodi
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:2, Interesting)
Where current periodicals, the day's newspapers and recently published books are concerned they are, as the public library is reducing revenues of the sellers. Historical materials is a fair point, but not what I was refering to. When Harry Potter 6 comes out there will probably be a dozen copies at the local library the next day.
But at the same t
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that a majority of the services bought by tax money goes out to benefit everyone. Local fire department? Even if your house never catches on fire, good coverage will make your insurance premiums lower. Schools? Even if you're an old fogey with no kids, educated children are less likely to become ruffians who you have to chase off your yard with a cane. Medical care? Even if you're never sick, preventative health care would reduce the number of days of work lost to sick days, plus contain outbreaks of infectious disease before it becomes widespread (too bad America doesn't buy into this). Water? Electricity? Sewage? At one time the only effective way to get pipes and wires to every person in the city was for the government to do it itself, and in doing so it modernized life for everyone.
Wireless is a bit harder to justify as a good-for-everyone deal. But what if a city decided to set up wireless points and ask the users to pay for it rather than doing it with their taxes? This law (from the first time this dupe was posted) [slashdot.org] would still make it illegal, because the purpose of the law isn't to say what cities should or should not do with tax money, its to make sure that people don't get wireless service until one of the Big Telecom companies deigns to provide the service in a suitably overcharged and crippled format.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Informative)
The government is of, for and by the people, but it is not the people.
The problem with representative democracy is that it is not possible for the desires of every individual person to be represented. The ultimate moral question with this issue is "Why should the hard-working single mother of two who can barely pay her bills let alone afford a computer have to pay MORE taxes to support "free" Wi-Fi for a bunch of geeks who make three times more than she does and who ALREADY have Internet access anyway?"
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:4, Informative)
That is true, unless the community is not being served by any of the existing businesses. If a telco refuses to enter a market because it has bigger fish to fry, it is perfectly acceptable for government to step in to fill the need. The government can set this up as a pseudo business so that it can help meet the needs of a subset of it's population without charging all of them for it. There may not have been any private companies capable of putting a satellite into orbit for many years, but that doesn't mean NASA wasn't going to charge people for the service.
It's also arguable that in a monopoly situation where the population is not being best served by an existing singular channel it is acceptable for the government to step in and provide needed reasonable competition. Or if the situation is extremely exploitive, the government can and has declared emminent domain and forcibly bought out the owners.
What most people here are complaining about are the situations where an area is not being served by a broadband provider, which is still significantly more than 50% of the US, yet would be prevented from setting up their own divisions to cover the need, because they would be threatening potential business that the broadband providers at some point in the future might want to exploit. But as most of the people in these areas have been waiting for years for coverage maps to bother with them, it seems perfectly acceptable for localities to choose to pick up the slack.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it is not. They should invite and encourage companies to do it, but can not do it themselves. Yours is a seductive line of thinking, but it is wrong. Cities are not going to force people to work on this -- they plan to pay them with taxpayers' money. And if there are enough
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fred,
My network provides MPLS engineered, 100 Mbps capacity wireless to nine counties in a "flyover" red state. My communities served are as rural as they get. My service runs $20 to $40 per month, and smokes the tired old DSL and cable networks. In most communities, I have between 12% and 33% of households. My competition believes a fractional T1 512 Kbps or 768 Kbps is suf
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because we all know that private companies are always the greatest for competence and customer service. In fact, the last three ISP's I've dealt with...
Wait...had morons who wouldn't know a processor from a hard smack across the forehead. And when I've worked on government accounts to service datacenter UPS's, the admins there are generally smarter and better then the equivalent corporate ones.
As to "forcing" you to buy something? Parent indicated a CITIZEN REFERENDUM OR INITIATIVE putting the taxes for this service to a popular vote. If people don't want it, it'll fail overwhelmingly and no one will be "forced" into anything. And if it passes, and the government service sucks as badly as you think it will, private companies will come along and offer better service and make tons of money. Of course, if the government service is as good as promised, problem solved.
You so-called "lovers of the free market" are the ones who tell us that it's OUR problem to figure out how to get health insurance when it's prohibitively expensive, and OUR problem to get a job. Well great, fine. Then it's the CORPORATION'S problem to figure out how to break into a government's market area, and if they can't, well, there's the free market, and some have an advantage where some don't!
Stereotypes and joking aside, not all government employees are idiots, and CERTAINLY not all corporate employees have two braincells to clack together.
And before you start in-I'm a private sector employee myself.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they can't afford service from a lousy and bloated and monopolistic private ISP then they have every right to use their tax money to develop the infrastructure.
Your assumption is that all private companies are lousy, bloated and monopolistic. Why not have the government nationalize the entire economy? Assuming you were referring primarily to incumbant LECs and cable operators, I'll agree with you that they are in most cases lousy, bloated and monopolistic. Except do you u
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Remove potential income"? Do you work for the RIAA? Potential income can't be "removed" because it doesn't exist. And there's not a single thing in the world the government (or anyone) could do that could not be defined by someone else as "removing" their potential income.
How's this: I don't agree with the idea that private industry should be using its disposition (and probably deep tax breaks and overpriced contracts with government organizations) to remove potential services from the public. Now do you see what's wrong with your statement?
why can't the govt. provide services? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't agree that the government should be using their disposition (and probably deep municipal bandwidth discounts) to remove potential income from private industry.
By this rationale (and with very little exaggeration on my part), the govt. should stop:
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Informative)
This is something that's been terribly wrong for a long time.
Note that the Internet (nee ARPAnet) was designed and built with about 99% funding from the US government. ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, has always been an arm of the US Army (and it's now DARPA, since they added "Defense" to the name). They funded it because private industry was unwilling or unable to develop the sort of communication system th
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
Air is free... But boy could some company make a killing on it. Just think of all the "potential income" that's being lost by allowing people to breathe for free.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Governments are great at running at a loss, simply because they can do it. They don't have to report profits to stockholders. Some things in life cannot be provided by private industry (or simply are not provided) simply because they are immensely unprofitable- like basic scientific research, space exploration (not involving suborbital millionaire tourists), law enforcement, development of open protocols like TCP/IP, military defense, and providing health insurance that doesn't leave you filing for bankruptcy if you get sick.
You must be the only person on Slashdot that does not think there is enough "government" and taxes in this country as it is. I _really_ don't need the government taking even more of my money because they think they are better at spending it then I am.
You're allowing a blanket ideology to cloud your judgment of what is reasonable and what isn't. Running an access point is cheap.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Interesting)
Phat_Tony, you nailed something that other slashdotters need to pick up on. There is no free market for telecom in the US, but do you know why?
Telecom is a highly inelastic demand product [netmba.com]. Raise telephone rates $2 and people still have to have their phone. You wanna go without one? Fires, break ins, etc. are a bitch when you can't call 911. Take a basic micro ec
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't quite follow your point as to "why" there is no free market in telecom. OK, so it's a service with inelastic demand, like cigarettes and gasoline (in the short run). So as goods with low demand elasticity, cigarettes and gasoline get really high taxes; but that's no reason for the government to give them a monopoly. In fact, in economic terms, if the government is trying to maximize tax revenue, then they want a competitive market, especially for inelastic goods with giant taxes on them. Competition brings down prices and increases total sales, and every time there's a sale the government gets their huge tax. The government doesn't care if you go to BP or Texaco, if you smoke Marlboros or Virginia Slims. They get their taxes either way. So why the monopolies in telecom?
And I don't see how any of this applies to your last point, "if you believe for a second it's about being nice to you and giving you free Internet, you're the biggest sucker out there. Government and big business is a serious sport. Wake up and look at who's putting the money behind the efforts you're idealistically supporting."
Well, government is putting money behind municipalities providing broadband as a government utility. If governments collect taxes to pay for the service, then give the service away for "free" on the margins, that will prevent them from being able to collect a tax on it. If they're giving it away for free, they not only can't tax it, they have to use other tax revenue to subsidize it. Also, by offering it at no marginal cost, people will discontinue their paid DSL and Cable broadband service (which they pay taxes on), and switch to the "free" government service (which they're already paying for). Thus providing free broadband will erode their existing tax base!
So I disagree with your insinuations regarding the motives of those promoting municipal broadband. They probably are acting for their own self interest, as they understand it. But the locals are probably for it because they don't understand that when the government provides something for "free," it's likely to cost them more in total, and be lower quality. The government backers just want more programs to administrate; it makes more jobs to hand out, more "good" they can say they're doing for the community, more accomplishments for their resume, more media coverage, larger budgets, more people to supervise, all leading to more pwoer, prestige, and higher salaries for themselves. Basically, all the normal incentives for government to expand.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I learned some math. Here's a little math lesson.
Inelastic goods tend to have a lump sum, or flat tax (as opposed to a flat rate tax). Cigarettes, in every state in the US, are taxed by the pack. [taxadmin.org] And guess what, gasoline? Taxed by the gallon [ca.gov] And holy crap, look at this, I'm looking at my SBC local phone bill right now, and the tax is charged by the line. A portion of my long distance tax charges is actually done as a percentage, but guess what, they're chan [keepusffair.org]
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:2)
In all seriousness though, that is the law's intention, though I doubt it extends to personal access points, just publicly funded ones.
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be more surprising that they haven't activated Wi-fi Protected Access, or WPA, however. Definitely more related to WEP, either way. ;-)
Re:I can see 20 access points... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems silly (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if this passes, the terrorists have really won.
Re:This seems silly (Score:2)
Re:This seems silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This seems silly (Score:2)
Re:This seems silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, if a company can write the laws to force people to buy your product, then it sounds like a pretty good plan. Almost (but not quite) makes you want to help out Ralph Nader, doesn't it?
Re:This seems silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, my local government offers trash service for about $12/mo. Can I decline? Actually, I think I can. But I'll have to pay a private company $50/mo for service or use the lo
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems silly (Score:2)
Re:This seems silly (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that is a facile oversimplification. They're not banning free stuff. They're banning stuff that taxpayers would be forced to pay whether they used it or not.
I presume that any person could still buy wi-fi hotspots with his own dime and offer them to his fellow citizens for free.
Re:This seems silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, private companies are abusing the system through bribery, not only to hold onto existing markets, but to create, from nowhere, markets and demand that otherwise would never have existed.
I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they're lying. Plain and simple.
"That's not to say they disagree with the wireless provision. SBC Communications, which has more DSL customers in the nation than any other provider, said cities should be allowed to offer wireless Internet access in public places, such as parks and libraries. But they should not directly compete with private enterprises by providing services to residents and businesses, said company spokesman Gene Acuña.
"If they do, then we would have some real concerns," he said."
Such as what? If the town/city screws it up then people can purchase their own service. It should be up to the taxpayers to decide if they want this or not. And if you're a tax payer who does not want your money wasted on this, then fight it in your city.
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the city can bury it in other taxes. You never actually know the "cost" of something because you're not paying on an individual basis. There is real incentive to make something efficient from a business standpoint, because your customers see the real cost of the service in their bill every month.
Taxes, on the other hand, are not so clear cut. Your "free" WiFi might actually be costing a hundred bucks a month per person, more than the, say, $60 a commercial provider might charge, but since it's in taxes, you never actually know this. And, things will never get better, since commercial providers can't compete against "free". Everyone loses.
I believe the unstated debate on this issue is whether Internet access should be considered a utility along the lines of power and water, and, if it is, is WiFi access a necessary utility? It wouldn't surprise me that the technocratic elite of Slashdot (and that's what we are, honestly) wouldn't think twice about declaring it a utility, but for the average person, I'm not sure it's so clear cut.
I believe a good compromise (if we were to deem this a utility) would be for the city to contract out the service to a commercial provider. Take bids, see who'll do it for the lowest price. Then, every four years or so, the contract is up, and the bidding starts again. This helps prevent government waste, and harnesses the efficieny of a private corporation (which, naturally, wants to be profitable).
If the lowest bid seems too high, this is a signal that the service is _not_ worth providing! Either the government reasses the value of said service (and then pays the higher amount), or they realize, quite simply, that it is not an efficient, necessary thing to do at this time.
-Erwos
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
If people in my town wanted this and we voted on it, then that would one thing. But if people in my town wanted it and the council said "I'm sorry, you don't have the right to vote on it" then that's a whole different story.
I believe that's the issue here.
Unitary government (Score:2, Informative)
If your town wants to install WiFi, have the people interested form a co-op, and do it! No need to force other people to pay.
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah right, tell me another one. You obviously don't pay a cable or satellite TV bill every month for a basic package. In case you haven't noticed they are routinely jacking up rates faster than inflation [broadcastengineering.com] by a substantial amount, and the quality of the channels and programming they provide is either staying the same or getting worse. They claim they add more channel but neglect to point out most of the channels they add are garbage.
Since 1996 when rates were deregulated they've gone up 50%, three times inflation, 150 channels and there is still nothing on worth watching most of the time.
OK so you are paying maybe $40 a month for this fine service. We are talking basic cable. Pretty much every channel you get on basic is laden with commercials so you get to pay twice, both for the service and you still have to watch programs laden with ads.
Ever watch TV late in the evening or early morning. Nearly every channel is running infomericals all night not to mention most packages carry a half dozen shopping channels which are basicly infomercials 24x7.
You want efficient cable/satellite then make them sell you each channel individually and if you don't want 3/4 of the channels they provide you pay 1/4 of the price you do now. John McCain [broadcastengineering.com] among others have tried to push this in congress and the TV/Satellite companies kill it in short order.
"but since it's in taxes, you never actually know this"
Bah again. Any city worth a plug nickel will have the costs of the service broken out in black and white in its budget. Wouldn't take much more for them to provide usage statistics on numbers of users and bandwidth used.
"And, things will never get better, since commercial providers can't compete against "free". Everyone loses."
Well actually no. The only losers are private companies that want to rake in a lot of money on internet service. Internet access IS a lot more like essential infrastructure today. Any kid in school needs it for research and if they don't have it at home they are forced to libraries or to do without. Most cities do provide internet service through libraries at taxpayer expense already, you are just saving people from having to go to the library and queue up to get it, assuming you can swing a second hand computer.
If you make each household pay monthly the affluent get it, the poor don't and you just reinforce the digital divide. If it is done through taxes everyone has equal access.
Wireless access points are cheap, there is so much dark fiber sitting around bandwidth is also cheap. Its key you don't have to run something in to every home. Just setup evenly spaced access points. It is totally rationale and efficient for cities to provide this as a public service.
Cable and DSL will never be able to compete against wireless, free or not, so they have a lot to fear. They have to run copper or fiber in to every home, send crews around to hook, unhook and repair every home. They have to spend a small fortune mailing out bills, cashing checks and dealing with deadbeats. The can't beat public wireless on efficiency, how its paid for.
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Why can't the government provide vouchers or somesuch for the poor to get internet access, instead of setting up competing tax-funded services guaranteed to put marginal providers out of business? Hell, wouldn't it be CHEAPER?
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
Right. and it's more cost effective to have a government-sanctioned police force than it is for each person to hire private security. Think of all the jobs that would be created if that were the case.
Fire, ambulance, other emergency services: There are economic constraints here that simply do not apply to internet providers. The nature of the service makes a single emergency service provi
'Free' Wifi? (Score:5, Informative)
According to http://www.wifimaps.com/ [wifimaps.com], there is only one wireless network within half a mile of my house, despite the fact that hundreds of people live in that area.
Why should the vast majority of the population subsidize the small percentage of people who are interested in this stuff? It's not like Internet connectivity is *that* expensive.
Besides, do you really want to get your Internet connectivity from your local government?
Wonderful... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why government-regulated industries and socialist ideas exist in the first place: Because some people as a group are willing to provide subsidized {access to new technology, farm aid, health care, social security} to those who are not able to afford it, in hopes that their efforts will eventually give economic stability t
Re:Wonderful... (Score:2)
I think (Score:5, Interesting)
What a coincidence... (Score:3, Funny)
I too am searching for a sponsor to give me $125 for $50 wireless network cards.
Un-American (Score:3, Funny)
Governments giving free stuff to people is doubley Un-American.
anonymous coward lobbyists are out in force here (Score:5, Interesting)
Muni WiFi ALL THE WAY!!
As soon as my metro area goes muni wifi, I am gonna cut off my DSL AND my landline. Buh-Bye Big Telco....
Re:anonymous coward lobbyists are out in force her (Score:2)
Texans: Write your legislator! (Score:5, Informative)
Round up a posse... (Score:4, Funny)
Buncha fracking liars (Score:3, Insightful)
I have lived in Texas and let me tell you this, Special interests RULE the legislature in Texas. The Texas legislature is limited by its constitution to meet for only 140 days every TWO years. The legislators are overloaded with work they HAVE to do to keep the state running. Because of that they rely on special interests very heavily.
In addition to that, campaign finance laws in Texas are virtually non-existant. There are no limits on contributions by citizens. My former representative bought a Ford Explorer with the leftovers of his campaign war-chest and got away with it.
Free? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing is free (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that a lot of WiFi's popularity has been helped by commercial hot spots. What incentive do companies have if they know the government will put them out of business?
Disclaimer: I own pre ipo stock at a major hot spot provider.
PA Governor == Ex-Philly Mayor (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Luxury, Utility, or Incentive (Score:5, Interesting)
1) WiFi/Net access is a luxury. It is not a basic utility and should not be considered one. The availability of massive quantities of information to the public might be in the general interest, but they can go to a library.
2) Net access is becoming a utility. It is as necessary to the everyday life of the average american as running water and electricity. Remember, we started out without them. At what point does Net Access work that way? We're not quite at that debate yet. We probably won't be there for a while, although maybe it'll be considered if and when somebody establishes a monopoly.
3) Incentive. Are communities providing free wifi to encourage businesses to move in/stay local? This seems the best reason to do it. Although it might be better addressed by providing a tax incentive to businesses to provide indoor coverage than by a government-controlled system that's going to be inefficiently managed. [As a side-note, are these systems going to remain as open as they are after the first few major hacks from such points? What about liability for the Wireless Access provider? Does he have any responsibility to be sure his hardware isn't being used for malicious purposes, or is it like a payphone in the back of your business?]
Mmmm... just a few uninformed thoughts.
The Reason Being... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Reason Being... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Reason Being... (Score:2)
Re:The Reason Being... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument doesn't follow at all! The government is the one that has forced Telcos to install phone lines in areas like yours, and funded it by taxing those of us who wisely choose to live near enough other people, where it is economical to provide services.
Two Points from a Texas Resident (Score:5, Insightful)
2. That said, I am opposed to this law because it violates the principles of federalism and subsidiarity, i.e., power should devolve to the lowest level of government capable of handling the problem. Just as the federal government should enact no laws or programs capable of being taken care of by state governments (see also the Tenth Amendment), state governments should make no law limiting the range of freedom of local governments to govern themselves (naturally, this is as long as laws passed by such local governments do not infringe upon the guaranteed rights of it's citizens).
Thus while I think it's a bad idea for local governments to pay for free WiFi access, it's a worse idea for the state government to be sticking it's nose unnecessarily into local affairs.
Re:Two Points from a Texas Resident (Score:2)
*wifi access in libraries
*wifi access blanketing the town for the police and rescue services
It could be that the cheapest way a city can get a wifi network set up for their police and ambulance services is to build it themselves. (Private systems are not *always* cheaper.) Once the system is in place, would it not make sense to allow the citizens who paid for it an opportunit
Re:Two Points, Only One Left... (Score:3, Insightful)
mmm, you mean like EDUCATION ?
Consider this... (Score:5, Interesting)
2/ This is a public good. Many hard-core libertarians would disagree with money spent on public goods, and that's really just a matter of philosophy. But given the precedents of public parks (why build public parks when you could have Green Grass Enterprises provide parks and charge the little kids money each time they want to go down a slide?), public libraries (why have libraries when you can be overcharged by Borders?), a military (why have government build and own the nukes that protected us from the USSR and not NukeUSA Inc.?), etc., what is wrong with public Internet? Oh, right, Internet is more lucrative than the park business. Anyway, enough sarcasm. The point is, the precedent is set. Sometimes the line between special interests and genuine public goods can be blurry, but in this case, I'd definitely call it a public good, and by precedent, it should be fine!
3/ A rising tide raises all ships. Sometimes, social engineering is a good thing. Seeing as how much a paradigm the Internet is, getting people access to it can help change the nature of society. By the way, most economists (even conservative ones) consider education and information to be public goods.
There are major benefits... (Score:5, Insightful)
I look forward to a time when you can go to small towns across the country and see them revitalized by being well connected. This could be the solution to the last mile problem that the major telecom players are unwilling to solve.
Their cost/benefit analysis just doesn't have the community's interest at heart to the same degree that a mayor or city council will. This sort of legislation must be seen for the defensive maneuver it is.
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's always the bigger players that have the advantage. In this case, it's large phone companies that can write the laws to their benefit. Nobody who is in favor of free wifi is powerful enough to oppose them.
Corporations pull the strings, and government works at
Buggy Whip Lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
I represent the buggy whip industry, and we would like to join the efforts against municipalities who are offering useful public services.
While we no longer pack the lobbying punch we did 100 years ago, we feel its important to make a stand here and now. It is not the cities place to provide mass public transportation on its roads. God created the horse to transport man. He gave us whips to get those horses moving.
Buses are bad, so are cars. Horses eat grass, and could be feed on our lawn clippings further protecting the environment. Even horse's shit can be useful in fertilizing and for electrical generation, Clearly Municipal governments missed the boat 100 years ago in funding such follies as public roads, and mass transit systems.
As a God fearing nation of people we implore our leaders to stop trying to mess with Gods plan, and threaten wholesome established industries. Much like our own buggy whip industry once was; simply because technology has made it economically feasible to provide such services.
Why should tax payers pay for things they might actually use more than say a library or more often than a park? To hell with the people who would benifit from those services, you need thriving industry lobbying dollars. Unfortunately at the time our industry did not react quickly enough, and we are but a footnote in history. Don't let that happen to what's left of the Bells.
Communications and access to information is a priviledge and should only be readily accessible to those who can afford it, and those willing to pay for it. Information and the internet most certainly are different than other services traditionally provided by local governments, like libraries.
We the buggy whip industry clearly messed up a 100 years ago. It is going to take a lot of effort to reverse the clear damage done to our industry by the municipalities senseless actions.
But here ans now we can help prevent a another senseless travesty by feverently supporting the telecommunications industry's oppisition to the communistic cesspools of municiple wifi Internet access.
Infact, I hear you can even get pornography, and other naughty things, for free on the Internet. I heard that terrorists might even use tit to communicate.
Surely a God fearing, senator representing good wholesome people in the worlds greatest democracy, will not allow these back water heathanistic towns to undermine the very fabric of our country.
Municipal wifi will taking jobs away for hard working telecommunications workers who often risk their lives high atop poles stringing cable for one of the great and lasting american icons. Municipal wifi will encourage people to get online and have access to dangerous information, and maybe even porn.
Municipal wifi is communism, it might even be an even more communistic than the GPL, and free software. (Those Linux zealots will undoubtably further undermine the economicy if allowed to leverage their radical beliefs to the masses with free Internet.)
For Gods ske this is AMERICA, we cannot block the internet liek CHINA and get a way with it. We need to limit the free flow of information more covertly. We have already made broadband Internet dangerously low priced. Higher government cannot afford to let everyone have access to the knowledge and power of the Internet. If that happens then things like Internet voting could become a realistic. Vote turnout would sore, and fine Senetors might become obsolete like buggy whips.
We the buggy whip industry implore you to NOT let our fate happen NEEDLESSLY AGAIN.
Illinois Senate bill 0499 (Score:5, Informative)
I sent letters to my state senator and representative encouraging them to vote against it when and if the opportunity came up, and I fully encourage any other Illinois residents to do the same. If you're not sure who your state senator and representative are, you can find out at Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org] by entering your 9-digit ZIP code. If your state senator is on the Environment & Energy Committee [ilga.gov] it's even more important that you get in touch with them.
My letter (adjusted appropriately for the recipient) reads:
Damn. (Score:2)
Alright, i'm off topic now and will stop. But seriously, what the hell are
Free Wi-Fi as in Free Groceries (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. But if there was a single grocery chain in town and they refused to sell to people who lived in certain parts of town and set prices arbitrarily high compared to similar nearby towns that had more than one grocery, I would expect the government to try to defends its citizens basic right to eat.
They could encourage competition by helping other groceries open and defending those new groceries, or they could supply food to people who couldn't afford usurious prices.
But I wouldn't expect my city government to let people starve on the basis of competition.
Lessig in Wired: "Why Your Broadband Sucks" (Score:4, Insightful)
A good resource (Score:3, Interesting)
This topic was covered on PBS' NOW program last weekend.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW108 _full.html [pbs.org]
Short version: Corporations are trying to pass laws restricting what duly-elected officials can do (viz, starting up wireless public networks), EVEN AFTER they have refused invitations to provide the service. (There's a story in the program about a small town that no company would serve, despite being asked, and how the town council did it themselves... and then the telecoms went to the statehouse to try and make what the council did illegal. Interesting.)
FCC member Copps slams anti-muniwifi bills (Score:3, Informative)
FCC Commissioner Says U.S. Broadband Effort Insufficient
Mar 1, 2005
ZDNet News via NewsEdge Corporation
Michael Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member Federal Communications Commission,
As a policy-maker, Copps is outraged that the United States isn't near the top of countries with broadband penetration. While admitting the difficulty in comparing the United States with Japan, Korea or Norway, Copps also voices the growing restlessness of government officials who fret about the private sector's ability to ensure that all Americans get access to broadband.
Big changes are reshaping the telecom industry. Giant mergers--SBC Communications acquiring AT&T, Verizon Communications swallowing MCI--raise huge questions about how consumers will be affected. More local-government efforts to create their own broadband networks are facing fierce resistance from the Baby Bells and cable companies such as Comcast.
Calling broadband "the most central infrastructure challenge facing the country right now," Copps is wrestling with how to turn the United States into the most connected country in the world. Can private industries do it themselves, or will it take a regulatory prod to get there? Copps recently spoke with CNET News.com about these issues, as well as the recent complaints of Internet phone service Vonage that it's not getting a fair shake from local phone companies.
Q: Looking at the state of broadband from the consumer perspective, is adoption at a good point right now?
A: Well, if I was a consumer I would say, "Why in the hell is the United States No. 13 and heading south in broadband deployment? Why are folks in Korea and Japan maybe getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price? I am paying for the slow setup I've got--that is called high-speed broadband?"
I don't think there is that much satisfaction with the situation we're in...I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment. We recently got a commitment on a goal, on an objective. But an objective and a strategy are two vastly dissimilar things.
Q: What makes sense in terms of a national broadband policy?
A: I think Congress is going to have to work through that. If we are going to fix the Universal Service system, which is predicated on the idea that everybody should have access to comparable communications at comparable and reasonable prices, we have to ask, is our advanced telecommunications part of that or not? Is broadband a part of that or not? So before we start fixing every little problem with universal service I think we ought to have some kind of a philosophical or national purpose or national objective discussion about where does broadband fit in.
I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment.
At the same time, the state legislature in Indiana recently shot down a bill that would impose significant restrictions on municipalities for launching their own broadband infrastructure services.
It's not an easy thing if you're the leader of a hard-pressed, cash-strapped municipality--as all of them are in this day and age--to take on additional burden of providing broadband to your people.
I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--"Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering w
Coming Soon (Score:3, Funny)
If you breathe air from within the borders of Texas, or within a "breathing distance" of 0.23 miles, you are subject to the Air Tax, which helps compensate the government for your consumption of oxygen and also provides monies to properly dispose of that nasty carbon dioxide that is exhaled.
Re:Not free at all (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, Comcast is doing a great job of delivering broadband Internet "better and cheaper" than the alternative means, aren't they? And isn't SBC doing such a great job being "better and cheaper" than alternatives, too?
Oh, what's that? They suck? They're a huge pain in the ass, they have local monopolies, and they fix prices at whatever level they wish? Naaaah, that couldn't possibly be the case...
p
Re:Not free at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not free at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
Here is one of many such references: http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/robinstes
If you think about it, it makes sense that Medicare is a lot more efficient. HMOs and the like have complicated payment structures, require several authorizations for treatments, have various methods for billing individuals versus employers, have marketing costs, maintain lists of 'in-plan' doctors and facilities, etc. Medicare on the other hand has a list of who is registered and another list of how much they will pay for each category of care. Since there is only one pricing structure and one entity to send and receive bills, the whole operation is simplified and thereby cheaper to run than having many companies all looking out for their own profits.
Likewise, having a single large buyer allows for better negotiation with pharmaceutical companies. Why are drugs cheap in Canada? Its because the entire country buys them as a whole and refuses to pay the outlandish prices the pharmaceutical industry tries to push.
Want more examples?
Try education for instance. As a graduate of an elite private college I can attest that such institutions provide excellent (maybe even 'the best' possible, if there is such a thing) education. But efficiently? Charging $40,000+/year to give 2500 students an education is a hell of a lot less efficient than charging $15,000(or less)/year to give 30,000+ students an education that can be every bit as good (or at least pretty close) as one at a private institution. Whether or not the margin of difference in quality (and style) is worth $100,000 is up to the student (and their parents), but in terms of efficiency the public universities are the clear winners.
How about elementary/secondary education? Public schools routinely educate students on less than $10,000/year/student [stateline.org] and educate millions of children. Private schools typically cost at least twice as much and educate only a tiny fraction of the number. Maybe their quality is a little higher, maybe not. My public high-school in rural PA was pretty crappy due to a lack of local tax base and PA not pooling education funds state-wide. The teachers did the best with what they had though and the district gave everyone a basic education at a very cheap rate. Quite efficient.
If we wish our civilization to survive we must break with the habit of deference to great men.
-- Karl Popper
Great doubt: great awakening.
Little doubt: little awakening.
No doubt: no awakening.
-- Zen koan
Re:Not free at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Private education is expensive because the customers are rich.
If you want to send your kid to public school, all you have to pay is the school taxes, which you would have to pay anyway. If you want to send your kid to private school, you have to pay both the school tax and the private school tuition. As a result, almost all private school parents are wealthy, because they're the only ones who can afford to pay both the tax
Re:Government (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahh, it feels good to be a liberal.
Re:Government (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Government (Score:2)
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to ha
Re:Government (Score:2)
Why not? Halliburton [bellaciao.org].
Re:Government (Score:3, Interesting)
If it weren't for public access television, live professional television would be much, much worse. 99% of people who work in television (including me) worked in public access to gain experience before they did it professionally. It takes about three years of productions every week or so to get good enough to be a professional sports cameraman.
Imagine, if you will, the entry leve
Re:Government (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not. But if the residents of a city want to share the cost of wireless internet access, why should state legislatures and the telecom industry be allowed to stop them? But even if the law gets passed, there's nothing to stop people from creating non-profit organizations to do the same thing. It would just be a bit more work to get the required funding.
what benefits exist if the government provides wifi networks instead of corporations?
Probably lower costs for the consumers. But, that's only if it stays at the city level. My gut feeling is that doing something like that at the state or federal level would only waste lots of time and money.
who is going to pay for this?
The tax payers, obviously. Or, in the case of a non-profit organization, anyone who wants to help cover the costs. Keep in mind that if money was short, a non-profit org might have to limit access to contributors only, or cap bandwidth for non-contributors.
Re:Government (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's the issue of the digital divide. Forget the individuals, let's talk about the communities that aren't cost-effective for the ISPs to run broadband into. If the government doesn't get involved, what are they going to do?
I live in Long Beach, CA. The downtown is covered with free wifi. It's great, but most certainly hurts the cable and telephone companies. Everyone I know who lives around there picks up the wireless from downtown at home. Don't think that these anti-municipal wifi bills weren't preceded by heavy lobbying from Verizon (in Texas) and the cable companies.
Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is city water necessary? It competes against providers of bottled water. Is that fair?
Public schools and colleges compete against private and parochial ones. Again, is this fair?
Libraries compete against bookstores.
City garbage collection competes against private trash haulers.
Police compete against private security companies. Perhaps police should only patrol public areas. Anyone owning private property should hire a security company.
Public housing projects compete against private landlords.
Public parking lots and street parking competes against private parking garages.
The USPS competes against UPS, FedEx, Airborne Express, and others.
PBS and NPR compete against commercial television and radio.
My point is simple. We have many services provided by governments that compete against private companies, yet we see no problem with them. Some you may think are essential, and some you may think should be turned over entirely to the private sector. However, it's naive to go around saying that wi-fi isn't an essential service and therefore shouldn't be provided by a city when there are many other things that cities do that could also be classified as non-essential, depending on how you define what is and isn't essential. It's simply not a black and white issue. What a government should and shouldn't provide ought to be an issue decided by those who are governed, not by legislators bankrolled by big telecom companies.
For folks who don't read the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
"These are very disruptive, low-cost technologies, and it's not in the incumbent telecommunication companies' best interest to embrace them," Gurley said. "But these are technologies that can be very beneficial to communities."
He(or she) offers two diametrically opposed opinions, and realizes what is best for the community, but seems more supportive in banning free wi-fi. Bad article... doesn't seem to say who this person is, or what position they hold either in government or private sector.
Give me a break! (Score:2)
For a good taste of how simply ludicrous this whole banning of free access by local and state govt's via the neighborhood telcos, see Lessig's [wired.com] latest article in Wired.
Re:"Free" as in Routers are Purchased by Magic Elv (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the whole point of this. If this law is passed, people will NOT get to vote - it will be banned no matter what. Do you think it should be illegal for public libraries to provide public hotspots?
Re:"Free" as in Routers are Purchased by Magic Elv (Score:2)
Re:It's a revenue issue for the state (Score:2)
Re:What about citizens working together? (Score:5, Interesting)
And /. has already gone down that long road arguing the pros/cons of sharing bandwidth with your neighbors, I know all the arguments, I've done all the precautions, we're not going there for this discussion.
Re:local ISPs (Score:2)