The WiFi Cloud from Texas
Dailykos reports that Texas Congressman Pete Sessions has introduced legislation to bar state and muncipal authorities from implementing public wireless Internet service. Though not good news for Portland and the Personal Telco project providing free wireless access across the city, all can find solace in the dismal fate of a similar bill in the Texas legislature.
Sessions' bill (HR 2726), the self-proclaimed "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005", prohibits state and local governments from providing any telecommunications or information service that is "substantially similar" to services provided by private companies. Sessions, whose resume includes Bell Labs and Southwestern Bell, is closely aligned with telecommunications interests. As you would expect, the industry is decrying unfair competition from municipal and regional governments making investments in wireless infrastructure and services as critical components of their economic development.
Mercifully, the prospects for Sessions' craven bill do not seem bright. The state of Texas itself overwhelmingly rejected a similar proposal, in part due to the high profile opposition of tech leaders like Michael Dell. Even Texas, the state that brought you "nucular", executions of the developmentally disabled and a governor signing anti-choice legislation in evangelical church schools, had the good sense to just say no.
For Nigel Ballard and the Personal Telco project, this monstrosity requires vigilance. Hopefully, this latest Texas export to the rest of the country will be much less damaging than its others.
|
June 9, 2005 |
Jon Perr | Comments (8 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jun 10, 2005 6:00:21 AM
That seems like a very strange reply. Especially: They have a legal obligation to accurately explain BOTH sides of an argument to you!
If he's right, though, we'll be able to send Lars to prison for years and years and years. Is there anyone who knows what Rep. Butler is talking about? Is there a law that requires proponents/opponents of legislation to accurately present the best argument of the other side?
Posted by: bobriven | Jun 10, 2005 6:47:10 AM
Also of interest, after a little bit of digging, is that one of his biggest campaign donors is SBC Communications. Guess what they do?
http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/2005/06/gop_going_after.php
Posted by: TomHiggins | Jun 12, 2005 8:39:09 AM
While the news may be bad for city planners looking to do wifi coverage, the Personal Telco Project is an all volunteer non profit that does what it does without they local city or state and is therefor not hit by this type of legislation.
It would be nice if we did get a little help from the city, like some roof rights in a few key locations or perhaps use of the all the fiber the city has to build out some of the PTP etwork... but we do not and yet we still do what we do.
So while these types of laws are, in my personal opnion, something that may stop a city from doing its own thing or helping other projects like ours to do what we do, its impact on us is minimal.
For more information on the Personal Telco Project please visit one of our hundred or so nodes or our web site at http://www.personaltelco.net
-tomhiggins
Posted by: Jon | Jun 12, 2005 9:20:07 AM
Thanks for the perspective from the Personal Telco project. It's reassuring that this kind of self-serving legislation will have little impact on Personal Telco.
Posted by: jmc | Jun 14, 2005 11:35:54 AM
Yes, once again someone confused community wireless with municipal wireless. It happens.
Posted by: RAS | Nov 14, 2006 11:39:37 PM
Our City govt here in Coos Bay has its hands in the Charter Communications "money pot" and it has caused the rest of us in the County to suffer poor or no cable, wifi, dsl, and poor dial up communications. Since our City here on the Coast has basically given a monopoly to Charter for the city communications in return for part of their profit, we stand no chance of getting them to extend there services to the County. The Coos County authorities, said that Verizon, Charter, and various Wifi's are working on it, BUT we see no progress. We have the same poor services in Coos County unless you live right inside one of the small cities north or south of Coos Bay.
Even right inside the City of Coos Bay, people here still get no DSL, only dial up.
If there was a communications wish list, it would be that Verizon would have to provide better phone lines to county residents along with DSL since it is their service lines. Even better, A FREE WIFI Blanket to the general public and charges to cities, businesses, feds for security, etc.
As always, we are the "have nots. because "politics" and progressives want to regulate our communications. WE NEED NO COMMUNICATION REGULATIONS AND OR RESTRICTIONS FORCED ON US BY UNCARING STUPID CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL POLITICIANS.
Also, the Gov't needs to stop taxing our services. $100 for two phone line service which is 20% regulatory charges is ridiculous. We can barely afford our phone lines and we are retired and on a fixed income.
On another subject, no hope for a reasonable COLA because the Illegals that flood into the USA, especially, California DILUTE OUR SS and Pension colas year after year. Because our COLA is tied to Urban Wage earners We never get a break!!! We can only expect to barely survive in the future. Everything is FREE, our education, our health care, etc. as long as you are dirt poor or a mexican immigrant, but nothing is free, not even higher education for the citizens of the good old USA. Try being retired, not poor, but on a fixed income and still trying to send a child through college. It ain't easy. All of the categories of "low income" need to be raised to take into past inflation.
Posted by: RAS | Nov 15, 2006 12:02:28 AM
It is a disgrace, when our reps want to pass the buck or pass on an answer!
You should have gotten a better answer to your question. What are we paying them for?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: forethought | Jun 9, 2005 10:33:42 PM
Just so you know, there is legislature in Oregon along the same lines. When I found out that Oregon was one of the states where such legislature had been introduced, I looked up the bill and wrote to the two gentlemen who introduced it, as follows:
This was the reply from state Representative Butler:
Not a terribly polite reply, in that it's both assumptive and, as it turns out, incorrectly so (I had to do my own footwork to look up the bill and their addresses, and I wasn't put up to it), but I suppose questioning the motives of reps is not the best way to get them to give you actual information. Not that I'm at all certain they would have replied to anything else, either. I did reply and politely ask for a pointer to any such source that would provide "both sides" but never got another reply. Ah well.
Hopefully the bill will go down in flames. It does make me wonder what kind of campaign contributions these gentlemen are getting from the utilities, though...