State to Free Us from City Offered WiFi
Municipalities all over the country, have been setting up WiFi Zones. and offering these services free to its citizens, visitors or workers. Afterall, WiFi is cheap to set up, and cheap to maintain. Companies like T-Mobile don't like it at all. After all they can set up at the local Starbucks, where foolish people pay rediculous prices for coffee and Internet access.
website, I was blown away by the cost. Here is the breakdown.
- $29.99 per month for Unlimited National - Annual(1yr contract)
- $39.99 permonth for Unlimited National - Month to Month
- Pay as you go - $6.00 minimum charge for 60 minutes plus $.10 for each additional minute
- DayPass - $9.99 for 24hrs of service.
Now it just isn't that expensive to set up a wireless connection, those of us who think that $3.50 is too expencive for a cup of coffee would like occassional access. The Texas state legislater believes that the towns need to be restricted, and they know whats best (helping out huge political contributers) . Jack seems to think is a lefty righty thingy and he has a point, but I see it as restricting our City's and muni's unfairly.
It’s a question that has free market Conservatives facing off against
socially-concsious Progressives. Should high-speed Internet access be considered
a basic right that should be protected (and provided) by government? Or does
this place government in unfair competition with private enterprise? The answer
to this question depends very much on exactly where you happen to fall on the
ideological spectrum.
A battle is brewing now in the Texas Legislature over
this question, and it’s a battle that could get ugly. It’s a case of the
Immovable Object meeting the Irresistable Force. Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford)
has filed an outsized telecommunications bill that will, among other things,
prohibit municipalities from providing WiFi access to citizens. If you believe
in free market economics above all else, this makes perfect sense. You might
argue that it isn’t and shouldn’t be the role of government to function as an
Internet Service Provider
Chuck Kuffner has been keeping us up to date on what's happening.
2 Comments:
"WiFi is cheap to set up, and cheap to maintain." ???This may be true of the popular Small Office/Home Office equipment many are familiar with. But not of the commercial grade wireless infrastructure equipment required to deliver WI-FI Internet access to a community. There's more involved than just nailing a few NetGears to telephone poles. Once installed, the bandwidth that ultimately connects users to the Net must be purchased on a monthly basis. The more "free" users you have, the more bandwidth you need.
I have no problem with government provided wireless access in public areas, or non-profit groups helping people get connected. But when you have a government entity spending tax dollars to provide Wireless to residences based on the economic status of their neighborhood and the advice of a "social scientist" just one word comes to mind-- SocialismLet's call a spade a spade here and extend the logic. If high speed wireless access is considered a basic right" that should be provided by the government. Then it logically follows that the government should also provide the affected residents with wireless capable laptop computers, after all, what good is WI-FI if you don't have a mobile computer? Then, after our kind and compassionate government provides the equipment and the connection, there's software to buy - operating systems, virus protection, and of course, since internet access is a "basic right" the government would also need to provide ongoing user education so that its dependents could actually take advantage of the basic right of high speed internet access.
This bill is about killing all Municiple supported internet access. It would kill the free hot spots in Galveston, Hobby, and in Austin. This Bill is all about big goverment telling little goverment how to run their business. This bill will also kill access in Librarys in order to allow the telecomm less competition.
Internet service is not a right, rather it is a service. Some communities in the past have found themselves in situations where commercial access to basic services were not made available through private industries. They took it upon themselves to become the utility, the utilities (phone and electric) make profits supporting the tax base. I see nothing wrong with this in very rural communities.
I think Bob and I are on the same page when it comes to providing access full scale access to all at the taxpayers expence. but certain comercial zones, and public areas are the services that this bill will have its most chilling effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home