|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2005 : 12:31:31
|
Mr Sessions, just another prick supporting his major donors and business ties.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2726:
This needs to be stopped
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 13:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Slimey, little price of shit, isn't he?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/11/2005 13:15:04 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 16:33:58 [Permalink]
|
This has to be in part to stop certain cities like Philadelphia from making the entire city one big giant hotspot. You can imagine the advatages-- being able to go to any cafe, store, business, whatever, and then log on via a wireless internet connection all on the city's (i.e. the public's) tab.
But then where would all those wireless providers be? How would the big hotels slap an extra $10 on to your bill?
Perhaps next they'll stop muncipalities from having libraries! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 19:12:31 [Permalink]
|
Interesting.
Except for the national park system, our governments have chosen to regulate limited resources, instead of getting involved and running those resources. Power is supplied by private companies under regulation, not by any government entity, for example. And the FCC auctions off radio bandwidth to the private sector, as well.
Now, let's not get off on a deregulation hijack, as that's not the point. Does anyone really want to see any level of governmental involvement in providing Internet access?
Libraries, fortunately, are not an analogous service. The government can't sneak in to a library and put ads in the books. It also can't - without a large cover-up - distribute edited copies of certain books to libraries. And odds are, in my opinion, if a government tried these sorts of things, they'd find themselves without librarians, and come next election, the representatives who wrote and voted for the law would all find themselves booted out on their asses.
With the Internet, on the other hand... You know, when I moved into my current neighborhood a year ago, I found myself within a block of three out of work computer geeks. I'm sure they all would have jumped at a government job writing intercept-and-modify code for government-supplied Internet access. For example, it would be easy to write code for the New York City government to simply not return Google results which have anything to do with anti-stadium activism. And because it would involve just a few high-level officials and a couple of web programmers, keeping the source of the conspiracy a secret would be pretty easy.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of companies wanting to move WiMAX into cities, and even rural areas. I think the bill should only annoy top-level city government officials who see another revenue stream, and those who think that people who can't afford a $50-a-month broadband expense are somehow able to afford a $500 computer and a $75 WiMAX modem.
Unless, of course, I'm missing something. If so, please someone, tell me what! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 20:37:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does anyone really want to see any level of governmental involvement in providing Internet access?
The city I live in runs a free wi-fi hoptspot in its downtown area. It encourages local commerce and encourages people to get downtown and patronize the businesses.
If I read that bill right, it would prohibit the municipality from offering free wi-fi because there are a couple of pay wi-fi providers (like the $40/month t-mobile wi-fi subscription) in the same area.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 21:56:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of companies wanting to move WiMAX into cities, and even rural areas. I think the bill should only annoy top-level city government officials who see another revenue stream, and those who think that people who can't afford a $50-a-month broadband expense are somehow able to afford a $500 computer and a $75 WiMAX modem.
Unless, of course, I'm missing something. If so, please someone, tell me what!
Hmmm, Dave. Perhaps, but the stuff I've read about the Philadelphia plan doesn't sound too nefarious. I could see something like that happening, but tha ramifcations are such that I'm not sure it would... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 22:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The city I live in runs a free wi-fi hoptspot in its downtown area. It encourages local commerce and encourages people to get downtown and patronize the businesses.
And a recent story about coffeehouse WiFi says that some are removing the equipment because they don't like people coming in and then just surfing the Internet. They want people to talk to each other. But that's a managerial preference thing, I suppose. But more on this after the next quote...quote:
If I read that bill right, it would prohibit the municipality from offering free wi-fi because there are a couple of pay wi-fi providers (like the $40/month t-mobile wi-fi subscription) in the same area.
And if I read the bill right, any municipality which offers Internet service before the bill becomes law will continue to be able to provide that service. It's only going to affect those cities and towns which don't already offer the Internet.quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hmmm, Dave. Perhaps, but the stuff I've read about the Philadelphia plan doesn't sound too nefarious. I could see something like that happening, but tha ramifcations are such that I'm not sure it would...
Well, a "public/private" deal may not be - in a techincal sense - affected by this bill. Which was one of the things I was trying to get at in my post. I'll bet that companies looking to WiFi or WiMAX a city today, with or without this bill, are going to get incentives (likely tax breaks) to do so. I think that free and/or very cheap Internet would be great, I just don't think any government should be directly responsible for it.
As far as the "nefarious" things go, government officials certainly aren't going to advertise such dastardly plans.
Also, with WiMAX coming to the fore, why the hell would Philadelphia want to pepper the city with WiFi hardware? In other words, the plan sounds out-of-date already. If I remember correctly, one of the first cities to be getting WiMAX will be Baltimore, anyway (lucky you). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 06:25:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Also, with WiMAX coming to the fore, why the hell would Philadelphia want to pepper the city with WiFi hardware? In other words, the plan sounds out-of-date already. If I remember correctly, one of the first cities to be getting WiMAX will be Baltimore, anyway (lucky you).
This just shows how out of it I am. I don't even know that WiMAX is! I'll be doing some Googling after this post.
And who knows how much longer my Baltimore stay is going to be-- I'm done schooling in early '06! Then, who knows?!? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 07:51:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And if I read the bill right, any municipality which offers Internet service before the bill becomes law will continue to be able to provide that service. It's only going to affect those cities and towns which don't already offer the Internet.
True, but it also means that they'd probably never be able to upgrade to something like WiMax, if there were a pay-service provider around.
Over the long run it kills free internet access provided by some cities.
As for cities doing anything nefareious, I'm sure it would be noticed by some of the more tech savvy who would be using the service.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 09:43:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Except for the national park system, our governments have chosen to regulate limited resources, instead of getting involved and running those resources. Power is supplied by private companies under regulation, not by any government entity, for example.
Actually, while most electric power is supplied by private enterprise, there are some govermental agencies such as the Bonneville Power Administration supplying large amounts of power. There are also plenty of municipal utilities which produce and/or buy power to distribute to their city / town / county.
As for the bill in question here, it seems to me that it would prohibit a municipality from offering a service which could reasonably be offered by both private and public entities. This does not seem to be in the best interest of the public. It is a sad state of affairs when our elected "representatives" don't even pretend to put their constituents' interests ahead of their campaign contributors'. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 11:39:53 [Permalink]
|
Huh, I didn't know that about municipal utilities, Wreck. Thanks.
As to the rest, perhaps "substantially similar service" is vague enough to let nearly anything through. Plus, in places where nobody is stepping up to offer broadband wireless (for example), this bill allows a city to do so. Although I'm still not sure that it's a good idea. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 17:26:05 [Permalink]
|
Why I got my knickers in a bind.
quote:
The telecom lobbyists have now set their sights on Congress, where Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, introduced a bill late last month that would extend the ban on municipal broadband services to every city in the country. It's an outrageous attempt by cable and telephone firms to protect their duopoly over broadband from competition. It's bad for consumers, bad for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other countries in broadband deployment.
From the San Jose Mercury News via the Fort Wayne Sentinel.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/11852764.htm |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 18:21:19 [Permalink]
|
| I'm with you on this, moakley. I would not argue that either an investor owned or a public utility supplying power, water, cable, broadband, or whatever is the better deal for consumers. It all depends on the place and the particular cicumstances. I will argue, however, that to prohibit the public sector from supplying such a service, which in effect provides competition to others in the business, is a bad deal for the consumer. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 01:06:42 [Permalink]
|
The argument about handing over control of the internet to a government agency is a valid one. The possibilities for abuse are abundant. Unfortunately, I've recently found that agencies like the FCC have become little more than representatives of the very same corporations now jockeying for control of all forms of media and communication.
In contrast, local government seems more cost effective and sensitive to the needs of the average person than either the federal governmental behemoth or the multitude of multi-national corporations swallowing up competitive market forces like a swarm of locusts on PCP.
Keeping it small would help to keep the bureaucracy down and the corruption manageable.
Personally, I wonder if Mr. Sessions bill is more than a gift to his corporate supporters. I wonder if this bill finds it's roots in the same place as the recent attacks and attempts at federal control of the CPB. (Or, am I turning into a paranoid conspiracy theorist?) |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
