Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking United States Hardware Your Rights Online

Verizon-Pushed WiFi Bill Becomes Law in PA 397

Posted by timothy from the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law-directors-cut dept.
Cryofan writes "A Wall Street Journal article (via freepress) tells the sad tale of how legislation barring PA municipalities from offering paid telecom services was signed into law. 'Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell said late Tuesday night that he had signed into law a large telecommunications bill placing severe restrictions on the ability of cities and towns to offer telecommunications services, an item that was heavily lobbied by Verizon Communications Inc. and other big telephone companies in similar legislation across the country.'" (Also mentioned last week.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon-Pushed WiFi Bill Becomes Law in PA More

Verizon-Pushed WiFi Bill Becomes Law in PA

Comments Filter:

  • FCC regulation? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fredistheking ( 464407 )
    I thought the FCC was the only organization that could regulate the airways. Am I missing something?

    • Re:FCC regulation? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:36PM (#10968123) Homepage
      The PA state government can regulate PA city governments. The airwaves don't come into it.

    • Re:FCC regulation? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This doesn't mean they can't operate Wifi networks. It just means they can't charge for it.

    • Re:FCC regulation? (Score:3, Informative)

      by nametaken ( 610866 )

      Actually, it's a law that dictates local governments can't make their own low-cost or free wifi access for it's citizens until the telco's get a crack at it. If the telco says no, the gov's can go ahead. I might be off about this, but it's what I remember reading in the WSJ yesterday. It might be to keep government from dominating communications services, but either way, it APPEARS to SUCK.

      • Re:FCC regulation? (Score:5, Informative)

        by nametaken ( 610866 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:13PM (#10968495)

        Apologize for responding to my own post, but I found the WSJ article I was reading the other day...

        "The telecom companies argue that it is unfair for them to have to compete against the government. They say that the legislation enables them to improve service to their customers by investing in their networks. "If we put that money at risk, and here comes government to compete against us, with advantages that government has -- not paying taxes, access to capital at good rates ... that severely limits the opportunity and limits our interest in taking the risk," says Eric Rabe, a spokesman for Verizon."

        I guess they kinda have a point.
        • Fairly standard issue.

          Comes up whenever the government wants to do something like build housing and other "public works" that the private sector also provides. Government doesn't provide telephone service, for example.

          However, I don't see anything wrong with a fairly low level service that is free, and the private sector provides higher speed, secure service. Problem right now is that 802.11b is pretty darn good for general use, so its hard to segment out a role for the private sector if this is free.

        • Re:FCC regulation? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:37PM (#10968776)
          Yes, well ... on the other hand you have to consider the source. Verizon isn't exactly a shining example of enlightened capitalism in action, you know.

          The irony in all of this is that for nearly a century the phone company was a legal monopoly established and regulated by the Federal Government. Congress was correct in their initial assumptions that a. the private sector was better suited to the task from an efficiency perspective and b. the established provider would need careful regulation and monitoring, with appropriate quality-of-service standards. Whatever else you want to say about the old Ma Bell ... the phones worked. America had one of the most reliable telephone systems on the planet. Then, "in the interests of the consumer" that government-granted monopoly was suddenly deemed "bad", and was broken up into the parent AT&T and the various RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and largely deregulated. Granted, Ma Bell had maintained iron control of the whole network (that was the law), but they could have been required to relax some of that control (for example, allowing third-party terminal equipment) rather than a break up of the company. It's not as if AT&T was an illegal monopoly, like oh, I don't know, Microsoft ... the Feds PUT them there in the first place!

          Be that as it many, we now have a private telecom provider, Verizon, coming back and convincing the government (albeit a state one, but the precedent has been set) that said government has no interest in providing a modern telecommunications service. It was the government that originally made phone service available to all, and required that it be priced at a level that wouldn't leave anyone out in the cold.

          What's worse, given the way the RBOCs have been consolidating lately, it looks like we're heading back to the days of a monopolized telephone system, but without the kind of oversight that such a system really needs. The idea of tax dollars being used to support something as critical to our lives and economy as telecommunications isn't really problematic: all governments spend our money on far less useful things every day. If Verizon can't take the competition they should just find some other industry to monopolize, rather than getting laws custom-written to eliminate that competition. They've taken a page out of the MPAA's book it seems, and frankly I'm sick of that kind of behavior.

        • No, they don't. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Civil_Disobedient ( 261825 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @08:05PM (#10969656)
          I guess they kinda have a point.

          Bullshit. Coca-Cola could make the same argument about the government interfering with their ability to make a profit of Disanti water because, shucks, the public water utilities are hurting their ability to compete.

          Communications, in this day and age, are as vital a resource as water and transportation. Leaving it in the hands of a few private organizations to implement when and where they see fit (e.g., when and where they can make a profit) is, to put it blundly, bullshit.
    • FCC is regulating those airwaves. The 2.4 GHz spectrum they're using has very clear rules about it.

      I'm not sure, but it might be possible that if the FCC stepped in they would rule against the government, since this spectrum is not set aside for federal use like other chunks.
    • You are missing the fact that there are NO negative consequences for our elected representatives when they sell us out to the corporations.

      We need to have BAD THINGS happen to politicians and other government officials when they sell us out to the corporations. If nothing bad happens to them, and there is so much to gain for these politicians/bureaucrats (bribes, "donations", ultra-lucrative lobbying positions, "grants",etc) and no negative consequences, why not do it?

      There is a reason why you or I do not

  • Cities and towns strike back (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    with public cat5 ethernet plugs at every street corner.
    • Heh. If you really want to strike back, encourage businesses in your local community to set up free wireless hot spots with the same local ISP. The businesses get extra revenue from all the geeks suddenly getting out of their houses, and in return, everyone benefits.

      We have those sorts of community wireless projects out here in the bay area already in some places, but it isn't ubiquitous enough yet. That said, there are only a couple of places in downtown Santa Cruz where I can't see an open wireless c

  • I'm glad Verizon have done this, public telecoms are an outrage when the free market can handle it. I know the telecoms sector would never engage in monopolistic and unfair practises.

    *removes tongue from cheek*

    • Re:Quite right, it's anti competitive & monopo (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:44PM (#10968200)
      Yes,

      Well, before wireless, it was wired. In 1995, the State of Texas passed a bill that prevented the City of Austin from string fiber optic between its high-schools, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and power substations.

      Seems that Southwestern Bell though it mighty uncompetitive of the City of Austin to replace old crappy 9600 baud modems with something that would be faster *and* cheaper! Of course, the Texas Leg voted was anti-people back then too.
      • It should be noticed, however, that Austin is implementing a free wifi in city parks plan. And, of course, you can't swing a patch cable without passing it through an open wifi network, mostly due to the hard-workin' volunteers at http://www.austinwirelesscity.org/

  • Big Ed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:37PM (#10968139) Homepage Journal
    How does Governor Ed Rendell spin this bill on behalf of his Pennsylvania constutents? Since he anticipates Verizon waiving its right to stop local competition, and likes a "lucrative provision giving phone companies like Verizon large incentives to promise to modernize their networks", he'll just tell Pennsylvanians that if they bribed him as well as Verizon, they might get him to answer their calls, too.
    • I am guessing that Mr Rendell is now a somewhat richer governer of Pennsylvania.

  • Honestly, if I remember back to all those wonderful classes on what this country was founded on it reads (paraphrasing) "For the people, by the people".

    Correct me if I'm wrong but what PA was trying to do was "For the people, by the people" and what Verizon is trying to do is "For Verizon's pocket book, by the money of the people".

    Recently a lot of these kinds of laws have really irritated me by the fact that the laws as they were ogriginally intended gave consumers, the people, the ability to actually do
    • My XBox is technically on lease

      They made you sign a lease contract before you paid them and took it home? Why did you do that, when you can buy an X-Box from any number of stores?

      my software almost all of it on "lease"

      See above. Unless you signed a contract stating otherwise (click-through EULAs not having widely found to be legitimate contracts), you own your copy of the software. Anyone who tells you otherwise has ulterior motives.

    • You own your Xbox. As regard to software, you own the plastic disc, the box, and (most importantly) a license to use the software contained on it. That license is irrevocable, and transferable (under the doctrine of first sale). You own software in exactly the same way as you own a book.
  • I remember reading recently that the City of Philadelphia was planning on building a citywide, free WI-FI network.

    Could the purpose of this be specifically to kill that off?
  • My initial feeling is "THOSE MORONS! I WANT FREE WIFI!"

    But once i thought about it, i'd rather verizon (et al.) worked cooporatively with city governments. City governments want city wide wifi, verizon could do it, add a few dollars here and there, wam bam. Less complaints from verizon, and nearly free wifi. I'm a fan.

    At least verizon goes to bat against other corporate conglomorates. (even though they lost that whole subpoena thing.)
    • But once i thought about it, i'd rather verizon (et al.) worked cooporatively with city governments. City governments want city wide wifi, verizon could do it, add a few dollars here and there, wam bam

      But the bill would seem to give Verizon far too much leverage in any negotiations, because it takes away alternatives from the city. In other words, what does this bill do to ensure Verzon will "work cooperatively"?

      To make ana analogy, do you think your car repair bills would increase or decrease if your s

    • This reminds me of the Alfred P. Sloan and our beloved General Motors's successful sceme to ruin America's public transportation system in the 50s.
      http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm [verdant.net]

      But nearly free is still not free, right? I can imagine Verizon's idea of 'free' WiFi: Ad-bloated, tracked, data mined and generally so cumbersome as to make you want to pay for a service that could be free.

      I prefer that my local government, that I have *a teensy* bit of say in control this much more than Verizon.
    • But you won't get nearly free wi-fi. Once the telcos prevent cheaper alternatives they'll do what they've always done: invest your money in marketing schemes like credit card offers and frequent flyer miles while spending as little as possible on R&D.

      Judging by the junk mail I get from SBC I figure they could build free wi-fi for an entire city for the price of what they spend on advertising themselves.

  • Skill OK for non-govt. groups (Score:5, Informative)

    by btrapp ( 446268 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:40PM (#10968170)
    The title of the article is a little misleading - while the ruling does bar municipalities creating their own networks, this does not stop private groups of citizens from creating municipal networks.

    So a motivated group of citizens can still create a city wide wireless network, it's just the local governments that can't. (I wonder if the govt. can give grants to the citizens... that'd be a nice work-around)

    • Skill OK for non-govt. groups-Libertarian. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "So a motivated group of citizens can still create a city wide wireless network, it's just the local governments that can't. (I wonder if the govt. can give grants to the citizens... that'd be a nice work-around)"

      That's quite fair (especially from a libertarian standpoint). Why should a government institution under threat of the gun dictate that my money go to WiFi?
    • Government really isn't needed to roll out a MetroArea wireless Network, though; neither is the telco monopoly.

      The future of wifi is supposed to be an emergent thing called intelligent Mesh Networking [communitynetworking.org], where each new private/public node contributes some of its resources to a networked fabric, rather than interfering with it like 802.11a/b/g. The more nodes (w/ caching) the better (like BitTorrent).

      Of course, the major "drawback" of bottom-up mesh networking --besides the routing being somewhat complicat

  • Exception made for Philadelphia (Score:5, Informative)

    by trickofperspective ( 180714 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:41PM (#10968178) Homepage
    It should be noted that Philadelphia made a deal [philly.com] with Verizon that will allow it to go forward with their original city-wide WiFi rollout despite this law.

    ~Trick

    • What the fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wurp ( 51446 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:16PM (#10968520) Homepage
      The city of Philadelphia made a deal with Verizon to let them break new PA communication laws?

      Can I make a deal with Smith & Wesson to legally shoot the people who made those laws?

      More seriously - if this is a law generally governing how the government can (or can't) compete with commercial wireless services, how the hell can one company give the city the OK to break the law? If the law is actually written to prevent competition with Verizon specifically, how can PA citizens not be rebelling?

    • Re:Exception made for Philadelphia (Score:4, Interesting)

      by toxic666 ( 529648 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:19PM (#10968552)
      As a resident of the Commonwealth, I once again take my shoes off to our elected officials willingness to tax us directly and indirectly to subsidize Verizon. Remeber the sweetheart, multi-billion dolar tax breaks they got to roll out high-speed (10's og Mbit/s) broadband, then stuck us with DSL?

      http://www.newnetworks.com/Libertybellstolen.htm [newnetworks.com]

      Sheesh! Pennsylvania (aka Pennsyltucky) is Philly and Pittsburg with Alabama in between. If you've ever seen our legislature in session, the bib overalls might clue you in as to how technically savvy those guys are.

      Even my own rep. LOVES Verizon. I attended a breakfast Q&A he held, and asked about the Broadband deal and why the legislature amended the requirements for Verizon at MY expense. He got pissed and started bitching to the masses about how he gets all sorts of mail critical of Verizon, but he thinks they are just great. He also "explained" that it would have cost Verizon huge amounts of money to roll out fiber to rural and mountainous areas that don't need it.

      So, I asked what the taxpayers got for all that money because Verizon just provided DSL over existing copper. Next question, please!

  • Play-by-Play (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:43PM (#10968199) Homepage Journal
    as quoted from the Pay-Per-View Avarice Hour of Power

    Gov. Rendell: This bill is a piece of crap.

    Minion of Telecoms: We're rich
    Gov. Rendell: I cannot be bribed!
    Minion of Telecoms: Oh, we wouldn't dream of it!
    Gov. Rendell: Good to hear it, I'll just veto this sucker.
    Minion of Telecoms: We'll direct our considerable influence to your opponent in the next gubenatorial election.
    Gov. Rendell: ... ah yes, there's the line I sign on scrit-scrit-scrizzitz-scrit-scrut
    Minion of Telecoms: Good boy, here's a dog biscuit.

  • There are also good reasons for this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tacokill ( 531275 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:46PM (#10968228)
    Ok, before you fly off the handle about why this law was passed....consider this:

    Do you really want your government running any kind of telecom infrastructure? I mean, I am all for "services for the people" and all that jazz but on the other side, I am also for smaller government.

    WiFi *could* be used as just one more reason to take more of my hard earned money. This bill assures that won't happen.


    (p.s. I am against this bill but I am just playing the devil's advocate because issues are rarely black and white. More like lukewarm grey.)

    • Would you have phone service now...? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:52PM (#10968280) Homepage Journal
      Unless you live in a major metro area, the chances of you having wired phone access would be even lower than your chances of cell access if it hadn't been for the government putting down the cash to install a phone network.

      I don't mind the private sector but i do think that broadband providers should have to do an all or nothing approach. Making sure that all their customers have DSL availability.
      • You are speaking of FUNDING the initiative....I was speaking of operating the initiative. Two completely different things.

        Of course the govt should fund things. That's what we pay taxes for and that's what the congress critters fight over. But that is very different than your gov't funding, establishing, and running a WiFi network.

  • Typical (Score:4, Informative)

    by nunya_bizns ( 668601 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:46PM (#10968229)
    This is typical of Pennsylvania's legislature to bendover backwards in favor of Verizon.

    Verizon struck a landmark deal with the state of Pennsylvania to provide 45MB/s Symmetrical Fiber to the entire state. Verizon recieved over $2 Billion from Pennsylvania but Verizon did not come close to meeting its agreement - wire 50% of PA with 45MB/s Symmetrical Fiber by the end of 2004. The state allowed Verizon to completely ignore the original agreement and keep all the financial incentives. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/30544 [broadbandreports.com]

    • Re:Typical (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jodka ( 520060 )

      This is typical of Pennsylvania's legislature to bendover backwards in favor of Verizon.

      You misspelled "forwards"

  • Verizon will be telling free internet services to fsck off unless they pay verizon, and verizon will be modernizing the network w/ wiring runs and tearing up water mains in Pensylvania as well? Perfect....
  • That way the people who don't use WiFi still have to pay for it through taxes but I get to use it. Ain't government great!

  • Isn't It Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PenchantToLurk ( 694161 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:53PM (#10968292)
    I can hear the conversation now:

    VZ: Wi-Fi for every citizen, what a great Idea!
    PA: Yeah, we're going to give it away to attract
    a modern crowd.
    VZ: Oh, yeah, the billions in infrastructure that
    we put into your state, the jobs, tax revenue,
    all that stuff, you still want that don't you? ..etc...

    It's not necessarily 'selling out', or 'paid off politicians', just legit local politics. States and towns have been whoring to business forever, in various incarnations. In the poli minds, it's better to have positive corporate presence than a few towns with wi-fi. Especially since the assets will be trash in 10 years, as wireless high-speed internet supplants it, delivered by none other than VZ.

  • Politics... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Jerrry ( 43027 )
    Governor Ed Rendell is no fool. He's not going to bite the hand that feeds him.

  • Thank you Gov. Rendell for proving that both Democrats and Republicans can be the Devil incarnate.

    Gov. Rendell disagrees with the legislature and the bill but signs it anyway promising to personally help local communities to defy the law with his approval....?

    For an encore, Gov. Rendell will legalize the molestation of boys but promises to personally protect young boys from molestation!

  • Why did I bother voting? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Facekhan ( 445017 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:57PM (#10968332)
    Is there even a reason we vote anymore. I think I am about to become a principled non-voter based on the fact that our government is now so corrupt we only help legitimize it by voting. I think I will start a public ad drive next election cycle to encourage people not to vote with the goal of keeping the voting population below 50% and therefore keep our government illegitimate.

    Its not so much like this is a bad law so much as corporations really have taken over (in place of the big churches) because they pay almost no taxes (because they know how to work the system) and they are both considered persons under the law regarding free expression but also act as a shield by their owners and executives through which great personal wealth can be created with no personal responsibility.

    Lets face it. The BOD of Verizon or Haliburton could order me killed tommorrow and they would probably never even be charged. So much for a system of laws.
    • " Is there even a reason we vote anymore."

      In a word, no.

      Democracy was a great experiment but now it's dead. Vast majority of the pupulation of the US now lives in a house district where the candidate from one party wins overwhelmingly. The party made sure the district got drawn that way.

      Vast majority of Americans now live in a state which always votes for the candidate of one party for president.

      Vast majority of Americans live in a state who always votes for the senator from one party.

      In America anyway
    • Or, instead of not voting, you could join the Libertarian Party [lp.org], and vote with the one party that stands for true liberty.

      • A) your preaching to the choir, since /. and the geek community is a hotbed of libertarianism.

        B) Libertarianism isn't a viable opertunity, since it allows corporations to be bigger bastards than they are now, with a complete lack of regulation. And the libertarian embrace of Randian self interest will also lead to a further degradation of morality, and social reponcibility.

        Though my co-responder does have a point, the Green Party is a safe alternative to politics as usual, though sadly it is as viable as

    • I honestly believe that our democracy is an illusion, and we're taught to vote in our schools in order to make us complacent. Voting makes people feel as if they have "ownership" of the system, though our government is evidently owned by corporations.

      We're all taught to legitimize the government. That way, when our government commits atrocities, it's with the implicit agreement of the American people. The myth that every man (or woman) can become president is taught to children, whether the sons of the

  • Aquafina? (Score:2, Funny)

    by kkovach ( 267551 )
    Has Aquafina tried this anywhere with water?

    - Kevin
    • Most 'spring' water is simply municipal water that is filtered with charcoal and bottled -- so Aquafina would be biting the hand it feeds if it did this.
  • I wonder how many suitcases full of money magically appeared in his posession after this bill became a law.
  • What a relief, I was worried that with local governments providing free internet access, small startup wireless ISPs would be driven out of business. Its good to see that corporations like Verizon are looking out for the little guy.

    Thats what they're doing, right?

  • FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by acoustix ( 123925 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:02PM (#10968397)
    ...please RTFA. This does not affect FREE city-provided WiFi. This only affects PAID city-provided WiFi.

    I happen to agree with this move. The government should not be in the business of providing non-essential services. Government-run businesses do not have to make a profit, and actually don't even have to break even. Private companies on the other hand, have to make a profit to survive. It would be unfair competition.

    -Nick
  • I work for a FTTH company that develops a data/voice/video product, selling mainly to municipals and the like (mostly because telephone and cable companies feign disinterest). We've run into many situations where the telephone and cable companies file lawsuits against the municipals to cease the deployment of our product. Who loses? The consumer, because they're stuck with high-priced cable or DSL. The municipal, because they lose the revenue generated by serving up high-speed acceess. And the biggest loser

  • Our politicians are bought and paid for.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by bill ( 12141 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:04PM (#10968425)
    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/5009141.htm' [philly.com]

    Big donors power governor's big dance
    By John Sullivan and Rose Ciotta
    Inquirer Staff Writers

    Gov. Rendell raised more than $2.5 million from about 200 private donors for his inaugural bash, with much of the money flowing from corporations, trade unions, lawyers and professional associations.

    Contributors to the big party included many who gave heavily to Rendell's campaign for governor, some who supported his opponents, and others who have earned millions of dollars from state contracts.

    There were five categories of donors, with the highest, an elite list of 15, paying $50,000 each to earn "benefactor" status.

    Some of the top corporate donors included Comcast, Unisys, Verizon and SAP Public Services.

    Organizers of the event, which was estimated to cost more than $3 million, said donors did not earn special access to Rendell. [HAHAHA! yeah, right.]

  • Excellent.

    As long as Democrats [state.pa.us] keep acting like Republican light, the people will keep voting for Republicans.

    The next time anyone meets Gov. Rendell, ask him where his testicles are.
  • Okay, so it'll never happen but consider this:

    Private/Public companies lobby the government to pass law against the government offering competing services giving the argument that it could ruin or harm their businesses. I can see a certain level of logic and how this might even protect jobs...but...

    What does that say about UPS/FedEX and others lobbying for similar law for the purpose of having the USPS shut down... after all, it's a direct competitor with these commercial enterprises.

    I agree it ain't go

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:11PM (#10968480) Homepage
    What does it fucking matter?

    I mean, the trend is leaning more and more corporate every year. When is voting going to become a show when what really matters is corporate backing? Oh wait, its half way there already.

    Don't like what your customers are doing with your products? Write a law against them, push it through the court. Soon, your opposition is arrested or forced to stop doing what you don't like.

    Don't like another business? Write a law against them, push it through the court. Soon, your opposition is arrested or forced out of business.

  • How hard would it be to do private little city-wide networks with directional antennas? I could see there eventually being enough wireless coverage to hit (almost) anywhere on the continent without having to go through a traditional land based network.
  • Let's see...corporate america seems to be running the country now, not the people. Such a sad sight. Flame away.
  • They're banned from paid telecom services. Let's take this one at a time:
    • Paid: It's not paid, the electromagnetic radiation is donated. So long as the city registers itself as charitable towards itself, it should be fine. A charitable donation can't possibly be problematic. Honest! :)
    • Telecom: Tele is Latin, meaning "Distant". eg: Television = Distant Visions. But if there's wireless points everywhere, then they're close! That makes it a paracom, and there's nothing in the law banning those.
    • Service: Wh

  • Doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <kaboom108 AT bellsouth DOT net> on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:22PM (#10968581)
    This bill would stop municipalties from getting into the wireless internet access business with tax dollars. It does not mean only Verizon can step in to provide the services. If the community wants it, nothing is stopping them from starting a business and doing it. Lots of cities give out small business loans and so forth, if they believe the city needs such a business, nothing is stopping them. Wireless equipment is not that expensive, and there are lots of small isps across the country, so with a cooperative government it should not be difficult. They could then collect fees from people who actually use the service, instead of charging everyone whether they like it or not. Verizon is in the right when they say a private company (who can only charge their users) can not compete with a tax supported utility that charges everyone through taxes. If verizon can not manage it, someone else will.
  • Here's an intro for it without the socialistic slant:
    Today the governor of Pennsylvania signed a law barring municipalities from taxing their citizens and forcing them to pay for telecom access regardless of whether they want it or use it.
    It was hailed as a victory for taxpayers, because the planned system in Philladelphia was expected to cost far more per "customer" than the same level of service would cost from a private firm.

    Given the wonderful job government does delivering the mail, collecting tax

Slashdot Top Deals

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Close