MannyIsGod
03-06-2005, 06:41 AM
I meant to post some information on this bill last week, but forgot. Anyhow, here is a story on it.
I think the state is oversteping it's bounds a lot here. I personaly like the idea of having "free air", much in the way Philidelphia's free wireless project is being setup.
Susan Ives: Faster than a speeding connection, bill aims to unplug cities
Web Posted: 03/06/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
House Bill 789, introduced in the Legislature on Feb. 22, looks harmless. "Advanced Service Infrastructure and Intermodal Competition." Yawn.
But look again. Buried amid 332 pages of regulatory gobbledygook is a proposal to make it illegal for local governments to offer free or cheap high-speed Internet connections to citizens.
Read it yourself: "A municipality or municipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public ... any telecommunications or information service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service."
The telecom lobbyists argue that cities, towns and counties have an unfair advantage: They can use telecommunications tax revenue or issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure, an option the industry does not have. Government, they claim, has no business competing with private enterprise and their entry into the market affects investment and innovation.
Their position is right there in the first paragraph of the bill: "All public policy must be driven by free-market principles." Internet access is not a public utility, they say.
Proponents of government access claim that high-speed Internet access is a necessity and that commercial service providers have been slow to offer service in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. Where it is offered it's too expensive for many individuals and small businesses. New technologies make it possible for governments to offer fast Internet access cheaply. When everyone is connected, the entire community wins. Why not treat the Internet like a public utility?
The public utility argument is a specious one. There is no master list of what is and isn't a public utility. In San Antonio, my trash is picked up by the city. In the Philadelphia suburbs where I grew up, trash collection is contracted through private companies. Street lights, roads, police and fire protection, libraries and schools were once privately owned. Now they're not. Recycling once involved driving my empty cans to a commercial recycling center. Now the city picks them up. Priorities change.
And government services do not necessarily drive out private initiatives. The post office will mail a letter for 37 cents, but Federal Express still grossed $8.57 billion last year delivering envelopes at $20 a pop. Texas students can attend UT-Austin for $3,294 a semester, but many apply to Rice at $10,175. You can check out a book at the library or buy one at a bookstore.
Competition among private companies is not serving us well. The United States ranks 13th among the world's nations in broadband deployment, down from 11th a year ago. Of all the developed nations, we pay the most and get the fewest bells and whistles. Adding a government option would increase, not decrease, competition.
Opponents of the bill decry its broad language. They claim it could make it illegal for city governments to offer free Internet access in libraries and community centers. Even pay-to-surf wireless Internet connections in municipal airports could fall under the ban, they say.
HB 789 would prohibit innovative partnerships, such as Houston's TFA-wireless project. A collaboration among the city library, the nonprofit agency Technology for All and Rice University, TFA-wireless provides free and low-cost Internet services to Pecan Park, a low-income neighborhood.
HB 789 would prohibit the private-public partnership in Granbury (population 6,000), which opens the city's wireless connection to citizens for home and business use. The city owns the network; a private provider owns the hardware.
This is a bad bill. City-owned and -operated high-speed Internet access might not be viable for every city. But that's for citizens to decide, not the telecom lobby-dominated Legislature.
I think the state is oversteping it's bounds a lot here. I personaly like the idea of having "free air", much in the way Philidelphia's free wireless project is being setup.
Susan Ives: Faster than a speeding connection, bill aims to unplug cities
Web Posted: 03/06/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
House Bill 789, introduced in the Legislature on Feb. 22, looks harmless. "Advanced Service Infrastructure and Intermodal Competition." Yawn.
But look again. Buried amid 332 pages of regulatory gobbledygook is a proposal to make it illegal for local governments to offer free or cheap high-speed Internet connections to citizens.
Read it yourself: "A municipality or municipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public ... any telecommunications or information service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service."
The telecom lobbyists argue that cities, towns and counties have an unfair advantage: They can use telecommunications tax revenue or issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure, an option the industry does not have. Government, they claim, has no business competing with private enterprise and their entry into the market affects investment and innovation.
Their position is right there in the first paragraph of the bill: "All public policy must be driven by free-market principles." Internet access is not a public utility, they say.
Proponents of government access claim that high-speed Internet access is a necessity and that commercial service providers have been slow to offer service in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. Where it is offered it's too expensive for many individuals and small businesses. New technologies make it possible for governments to offer fast Internet access cheaply. When everyone is connected, the entire community wins. Why not treat the Internet like a public utility?
The public utility argument is a specious one. There is no master list of what is and isn't a public utility. In San Antonio, my trash is picked up by the city. In the Philadelphia suburbs where I grew up, trash collection is contracted through private companies. Street lights, roads, police and fire protection, libraries and schools were once privately owned. Now they're not. Recycling once involved driving my empty cans to a commercial recycling center. Now the city picks them up. Priorities change.
And government services do not necessarily drive out private initiatives. The post office will mail a letter for 37 cents, but Federal Express still grossed $8.57 billion last year delivering envelopes at $20 a pop. Texas students can attend UT-Austin for $3,294 a semester, but many apply to Rice at $10,175. You can check out a book at the library or buy one at a bookstore.
Competition among private companies is not serving us well. The United States ranks 13th among the world's nations in broadband deployment, down from 11th a year ago. Of all the developed nations, we pay the most and get the fewest bells and whistles. Adding a government option would increase, not decrease, competition.
Opponents of the bill decry its broad language. They claim it could make it illegal for city governments to offer free Internet access in libraries and community centers. Even pay-to-surf wireless Internet connections in municipal airports could fall under the ban, they say.
HB 789 would prohibit innovative partnerships, such as Houston's TFA-wireless project. A collaboration among the city library, the nonprofit agency Technology for All and Rice University, TFA-wireless provides free and low-cost Internet services to Pecan Park, a low-income neighborhood.
HB 789 would prohibit the private-public partnership in Granbury (population 6,000), which opens the city's wireless connection to citizens for home and business use. The city owns the network; a private provider owns the hardware.
This is a bad bill. City-owned and -operated high-speed Internet access might not be viable for every city. But that's for citizens to decide, not the telecom lobby-dominated Legislature.