Tell Your Congressman to Vote Against This

[JPhillips]

Federal Anti-Municipal Wi-Fi Bill Introduced

By Mobile Pipeline Staff Mobile Pipeline

A Texas Congressman has introduced a bill that impose a nationwide prohibition on municipally-sponsored networks.
Dubbed by the Author, Representative Pet Sessions (R-Texas), the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005, the bill prohibits state and local governments from providing any telecommunications or information service that is "substantially similar" to services provided by private companies.

The bill, HR 2726, is similar to a host of state bills pushed by telecommunications companies aimed at fending off municipally-run wireless networks. Some of those bills, most recently one in Texas, have been stalled in state legislatures.

The telecommunications operators say that such networks represent unfair competition while municipalities claim that the services are needed to promote business and close the gap between digital haves and have-nots.

According to Sessions' on-line biography, he is a former employee of Southwestern Bell and Bell Labs. The bill will first be considered by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.



Is there any limit to what coorporations can buy from our legislators? If a city wants to provide this service and the company contracted agress what the hell business is it of the federal government's?

[KWhit]

I agree with you 100%. I was in Fredericton Canada recently where they have such a system in place. It was outstanding.

[sterlingice]

So, in other words, the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act" equals "We don't like MANs because they take money away from Telecoms"?

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, in other words, the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act" equals "We don't like MANs because they take money away from Telecoms"?

The argument is that if enough Municipalities do this, there won't be any incentive for telcos to continue to innovate in the sector.

Which is complete and utter bullshit, but there you go.

[st.cronin]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the industry to be trying to sell this service to MORE towns/cities? That way they'd eventually be rolling in tax dollars from all over the country.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Wouldn't it make more sense for the industry to be trying to sell this service to MORE towns/cities? That way they'd eventually be rolling in tax dollars from all over the country.

I believe the industry would rather sell to individual subscribers because:

a) they'll make more off of the subscribers individually
b) they don't have to pay a political game to corner a market

[albionmoonlight]

If cities provide a service for free, then companies will have to innovate in order to provide a better product for which people will be willing to pay.

If they can sell us bottled water, they can sell us anything.

[MrBigglesworth]

/waiting for JonInMiddleGA to come in with an 'entitlement' rant

[Raiders Army]

I'm not for or against this since I don't have enough information.

For those who think this service is free, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Somebody's tax dollars go to this, and I wonder how much "savings" these states and local governments get, if at all.

I can see why telecommunications companies wouldn't want to this to happen, but what is the big draw for governments? Is it to draw people into their states or cities so that they'll increase tax dollars?

[JPhillips]

Raiders: What I have read is that it is a perk for people to come downtown. Its the same reason why some malls or coffee houses offer free wi-fi. Its just another way to make it enticing to come downtown.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Raiders: What I have read is that it is a perk for people to come downtown. Its the same reason why some malls or coffee houses offer free wi-fi. Its just another way to make it enticing to come downtown.

Ah. Depending upon where I lived, I would either support the bill or be against it. If my tax dollars were going to this and I didn't care if people came downtown and I didn't use the perk myself, then I would not support it. Those tax dollars could be used elsewhere.

Otherwise, all for it.

[JPhillips]

Raiders: I would agree that voters in cities should have a say on whether tax dollars should be spent on this or not. However, the federal government has no business saying that its illegal for a city to offer this service. Its just a giveaway to the telecom industry.

[kcchief19]

SBC is pushing this hard in Kansas and Missouri. I'm sure some other telecomm utilities are pushing it too.

Time Warner is actually involved in a lawsuit here in KC against a town that is trying to install a municipal fiber optic network. North Kansas City is with a resident population of around 10,000 with a large casino, a larger health corporation HQ, a large hospital and a daytime working population of around 50,000. The city has virtually no property tax and a low sales tax because the casino, Cerner and the hospital help generate so much revenue.

The city has a languishing industrial area and has been trying to redevelop its residential stock. One way they have discussed is using the casino windfalls to install a citywide fiber optic network that would/could provide "free" high-speed Internet service, cable and phone service to industrial, corporate and residential clients and tie the entire town together electronically. They believe this would help encourage new development and attract new growth.

Time Warner opposes this because they currently have the city's cable franchise and don't believe a municipality should be allowed to compete against a private corporation.

I generally agree, but I think JPhillips makes a tremendous point -- that should be a local decision on whether or not a community spends their money on that, not a federal prohibition. I also agree that if cities do this that it will encourage the private sector to innovate to recapture market share.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty much where RaidersArmy states his position -- on a local level, this would come down to "good idea/bad idea".

On the whole, I'm fairly unmoved by either side of the argument at this point, if there's a legit case to be made for a government to do so, I'm not interesting in fighting them but I'll be damned if I've ever seen a single instance where customers got superior service AND value from local governments getting involved in telecom or utilities in general. By the same token, if the feds want to put a stop to this then I'm certainly not going to stand in their way either (see experience above to understand why).

[Arles]

The only problem I could see is that the feds offer the service for free in many large areas - thereby driving out private companies that provide the same service. Then, some community run by old foggies who don't have any computers decide they don't want to have this service in the budget and all families in that area are SOL (unless they want to pay out the behind) because no local service is there to provide for them.

Again, that would seem to be the only legit fear in allowing this.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If cities provide a service for free, then companies will have to innovate in order to provide a better product for which people will be willing to pay.

If they can sell us bottled water, they can sell us anything.

I'll buy that

[JPhillips]

Arles: That's legit, but I don't buy for a second that Rep. Session is concerned about a potential wireless blackout. Its a gift to campaign donors plain and simple.

[albionmoonlight]

This got me thinking--there really is not much that municipalities provide that the private sector does not provide as well.

Police--ADT, etc. as well as private security guys for subdivisions
Fire--Again, ADT, etc.
Water--bottled water. Water delivery
Libraries--Bookstores
Community Parks--Country Clubs
Public Transit--Private Autos, taxis

There are some things for which I can't think of a big private equivilant:

Gas/Electric
Waste Disposal
Animal Control

I don't think that I have a big point to this--just something that never occured to me until just now. I suppose if I am making any point, it is that I doubt that private WiFi compaines will go out of business if Toledo decides to offer it for free in the public library.

I do agree that it will probably be done less efficently by local governments, but I am amazed that anyone can think that it makes sense for the Fed. to tell locals what to do and not do in this regard. I realize that "states rights" turned out to be a big sham, but even I (an admitted fan of the Federal government) think that its weird to tell a group of citizens that they don't have the right to pool their money and spend it on common resources.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

...I'll be damned if I've ever seen a single instance where customers got superior service AND value from local governments getting involved in telecom or utilities in general.

As much as we complain about Comcast, et al., that is accurate. They are also notoriously poor at maintaining and upgrading existing systems. I'd have to see economic benefits proven before I'd support an initiate like that.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I'm surprised no one has brought up privacy concerns yet. If municipalities provide Wi-Fi service, don't they have access to the data transmitted across their Wi-Fi network? With everything that's happened in the Phoenix area with DMV records being stolen by employees, etc, I'm uncomfortable with city sponsored Wi-Fi. It makes me more inclined to support legislation like this.

If the city of Phoenix wanted to provide Wi-Fi services, and included a comprehensive plan to protect my data (ie: stiff penalties for employees who access customer data - similar to the IRS) then I would have a different opinion.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: That's legit, but I don't buy for a second that Rep. Session is concerned about a potential wireless blackout. Its a gift to campaign donors plain and simple.

I agree completely. The telecommunications lobby is huge and that's definately behind this attempt to block government options.

I did some more thinking and another issue would be quality of service. We have cox for digital cable and internet and we get about 1 outage that impacts us about every 2-3 months. If Cox starts pissing us off and doing a poor job at quality/reliablity, we can switch to Qwest DSL or other broadband providers for about the same cost. So, there's a definate incentive for Cox not to piss us off with poor reliability. If the government takes this over and it's rolled into our taxes, chances are very few people will be willing to go from $0 to $50 a month in the event of inconviences. This will probably cause local providers to either no longer offer service or offer it in limited areas. So, where the government's incentive to provide us quality service?

In other words, what does someone do when their tax dollars are now paying for the "free" service that stinks and the local service is either gone or harder to find (ie, more expensive). People that run businesses from home or need a higher reliability will now be forced to pay taxes for the gov't service plus pay more to hire a more reliable provider. This will cost small businesses and consumers more than the current services do (again, this is assuming the quality suffers in a government run system - which isn't all that big a reach).

[JPhillips]

Arles: And I'm for every city having the ability to do this or not. The council can decide or there can be a vote. I'm not pushing any city to do this.

What I am against is the federal government making it illegal for cities to have this option. That's indefensible.

[gstelmack]

Cary has been talking about installing fiber throughout the town (they already have to run a lot of wire to synchronize traffic lights and for other municipal service). But instead of offering free 'net access, their plan is to sell access to the fiber to a telecomm company in an effort to generate competition for Time Warner, giving people a choice.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'm surprised no one has brought up privacy concerns yet. If municipalities provide Wi-Fi service, don't they have access to the data transmitted across their Wi-Fi network? With everything that's happened in the Phoenix area with DMV records being stolen by employees, etc, I'm uncomfortable with city sponsored Wi-Fi. It makes me more inclined to support legislation like this.

If the city of Phoenix wanted to provide Wi-Fi services, and included a comprehensive plan to protect my data (ie: stiff penalties for employees who access customer data - similar to the IRS) then I would have a different opinion.

The private sector hasn't exactly been exemplary protectors of personal information, either.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by clintl

The private sector hasn't exactly been exemplary protectors of personal information, either.

Won't argue with that.

Yet I'm more likely to trust the private sector than any government agency. It's probably all those dealings I've had with the braniacs at the IRS.

[st.cronin]

The internet isn't private. If you think it is, you're delusional. If you think it should be, you're being quixotic.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The internet isn't private. If you think it is, you're delusional. If you think it should be, you're being quixotic.

Um, where did I say I thought the internet was private?

[Easy Mac]

Just because a private company is providing a service doesn't mean what they're providing is.

[sovereignstar]

http://www.gomoorhead.com/

I can't wait. I'll finally be able to afford high-speed internet. Eat a dick, CableOne.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

...I'll be damned if I've ever seen a single instance where customers got superior service AND value from local governments getting involved in telecom or utilities in general.

Mishawaka Utilities electricity rates are slated to go up for the first time in over a decade soon, which I think represents outstanding value. I've never had any issues with service, but I don't know how they stack up in that regard.

My parents have not had any difficulties with either their cable or their electricity, both of which are provided by the town they live in. The cable system is certainly state-of-the-art, as they've had broadband internet through it for several years.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Mishawaka Utilities electricity rates are slated to go up for the first time in over a decade soon, which I think represents outstanding value. I've never had any issues with service, but I don't know how they stack up in that regard.

There's a serious effort to have most of my county annexed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which provides more reliable service at rates about 20% lower than PG&E, the private sector utility that serves most of Northern California, including my city. And I'm all for it.