FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi 188
Cryofan writes "Michael Copps, one of the five members of the FCC, spoke on the recent controversy over legislation to outlaw municipal WiFi: "I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--'Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace...a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'"
Funny how none of this would apply... (Score:5, Insightful)
YES!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
That can only mean he's a robot. Oh well, I for one welcome our logical clear-thinking robot overlords, and wish them luck in getting rid of the current government =)
Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:4, Insightful)
This just strikes me as terribly wrong in a very basic way.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps men like this will bring the FCC towards the direction that it needs to be heading. Who knows... some day all of the public airwaves will actually be used to benifit the public.
Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the opinions of even "predictable" members of the commissioners can be unpredictable. Powell recently said that he does not believe that the FCC has or should have the authority to regulate cable or satellite TV and radio. Despite being accused of being in the pocket of the companies over which he holds power, he has also come out in favor of time-shifting (once he got a TiVo), something that has rankled the heads of some media companies. Predicting what the FCC is going to do is like predicting how the Supreme Court will rule: you can get close most of the time, but you can never quite be sure.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple as that. VOTE. Not because of looks, appearences or if someone has a twang or not, but vote because someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way.
Executive powers decide who leads the FCC, but you can put that executive in.
Re:make up your mind! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is supposed to be a free market issue then the communities should have every right to compete with the telcos, since that's what the whole idea of a free market economy is based on.
Unlicensed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gotta Love Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I'm often anti-gov't, but I'm quite pro-gov't when the gov't is decentralized and decisions are made at the local level.
Re:Gotta Love Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe it is just that comapanies are above the government on the
Hell just froze over (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that have to do with the price of fish?
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.
To explain further, I live in the UK, which currently has a government formed by the 'New Labour' party. Historically, the Labour party has been Socialist in ideology, born as it was from the union movement. Yet this government has gone further down the road of privatisation, especially of public services, than the previous, nominally Capitalist, Conservative party ever dreamed of. The party name no longer tells the whole story, if indeed, it ever did.
Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.
Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.
It's an old story. (Score:5, Insightful)
People who make money doing things the old way don't want anyone doing things a new way.
Those who made money with horses did not want cars to be introduced.
Decades ago, the painter's unions tried to get the newly introduced paint rollers ruled illegal. They were afraid people would paint their own houses.
The big companies use VOIP to move your long distance calls around. They want private VOIP to be outlawed so they can make a huge profit doing the same thing themselves.
Aggregating a huge number of users with Municipal WiFi is far more efficient than having each person have a separate account with an ISP. The ISPs want Municipal and private WiFi to be made illegal so they can make a huge profit doing same thing themselves.
It's "Please, please, please corrupt the government so that I can make easy money."
Bow to your new wireless overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a marketplace is that it provides freedom to choose products and services you want. The Soviet Union was good at showing a govt. controlled economy was not a successful venture. Here is another such example. WiFi is a shitty solution for community wireless networks. WiMAX will be out soon, and is a far better solution for this problem. These Muni WiFi projects are ill conceived and expensive. I know this, but if I'm not in the majority in my community, I'm stuck paying for it. This is not freedom, but tyranny of the majority. I'd rather people voted with their dollars in a marketplace as to what kinds of wireless services they want.
Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:5, Insightful)
Pie.
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
They are government officials with publically declared party allegiance.
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.
I can see why it looks that way, from the outside. I think Slashdot groupthink is naive libertarian (small l; continental types would call it 'liberalism') in the way you mean, except when that means that some scum sucking profiteer might win; then the horde is pro-"justice". Really, generally much more 'liberal' than the U.S. at large, and not that different than other countries. The US is shifting slightly harsh-authoritarian, rather than touchy-feely authoritarian, which is a shame. I don't want to move countries that much.
Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.
Actually, it does, here in the US. There's quite a bit more of a culture of block-voting, support-the-platform, even-if-it-is-wrong here than in England or many other Euro countries. I could philosophize on why, but will desist. Suffice to say, partisan politics are very entrenched at this point.
Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.
Now you're catching on. The worst part is, the Demos are starting to become the same way, out of self-defense. Which, of course, they have to.
I hate both of them just about equally. Too bad they're spiraling off into heavily optimized fuck-the-world politics.
Government must give proper change a push. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that telecoms can do WiFi more efficiently. But they won't unless the government mandates it. Muni wireless is a way to get started. Eventually, there will be WiFi everywhere, and we will use VOIP for our cell phones. The cell phone towers will become WiFi towers.
Along the way, there will be less profit for some people, who will fight change.
Re:OT: Re:I'm mixfused (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.
They already did, it is called the v-chip [fcc.gov] -- almost all tv's manufactured since 2000 have a v-chip, almost all programming contains v-chip readable flags. The v-chip flag isn't applied to news or live sports, so you would not have automatically grabbed Janet's teat, but otherwise just about every broadcast program is flagged.
But of course, having a technical solution to this "indecency" problem is no solution at all, the real goal of the people behind the "decency" brouhaha is to control the content of the airwaves. The v-chip gives control to the owner of the TV, not the owners of the tv broadcasters. So, we'll be sure to pass more laws restricting contaact and pretend that we are really legislating decency and morality.
Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it a bit of time, first. One of the natural balancing mechanisms in our system seems to be that once one party is in charge, they inevitably over-reach and fall out of favor. Even as I support our President and believe in the foreign policy quite strongly (and note that I say this to establish my bias, not as some sort of subtle request to be "corrected" as some knee-jerkers seem inevitably to intrepret that as...), I see a lot of signs this is happening on domestic issues quite a bit. The polls and my general sense is that the President, for better or for worse, is not convincing people there is a Social Security problem. They're over-reaching on "decency" issues that really only a few loud people care about. A side effect of all this stuff in the Middle East is that in another year or so I expect people to start being able to ask whether we really need all this abusive airline security and other Patriot-Act-esque other things without it being political suicide.
The pendulum swings. The only reason it seems hopeless right now is that the Democratic Party itself seems to be dying, but that's ultimately not a big deal. The interests it represents aren't going anywhere and something will effectively replace it. (I'm still on the fence as to whether it will bear the name "Democratic Party"... it's still not looking good, but in the end it's of little consequence.) Were it not for that it might already have started to swing back. Hang tight for a bit.
(But brace for 2006; I see no reason to believe that the Dems aren't going to lose yet more seats and they are already nearly out of time to put into motion the necessary changes to avert that outcome. But "the worst" is over, I think, in most regards; I don't think we're going to get much more authoritarian. Right now our problem is the ways in which both parties are happy to sell us out, like patent issues and the way that "small government" seems to be MIA.)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about man?
US political parties are considered "irresponsible" parties in most European countries. This means that individuals are free to vote against their parties, free to walk across the aisle to form alliances on their own, etc. without risking party retribution, (at least retribution as severe as in some other countries, where your career is over if you vote against the party. That might also stem from procedural differences between parliamentary democracies and the American system.) This is part of the reason why we have two big tent parties instead of multiple exclusive parties, like you see in alot of europe in particular. Also, this contributes to the existence of Schwarzenegger "Republicans" and Zell Miller "Democrats".
At the moment of course, the country may seem much more polarized along party lines, but blue states still elect republicans to some positions, and red states still elect a few democrats.
Of course, since this doesn't directly bash Bush, i'll probably get modded down.
Re:make up your mind! (Score:1, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line?
Remember, cable TV started out initially as a government service in some communities. At least in Bellingham, WA, it was that way. Bellingham was stuck between a rock and a hard place. One locally available TV station. Some could get the Vancouver and Victoria stations. Maybe one or two of the Seattle/Puget Sound TV stations. So the city decided to build its own cable TV system. Of course, it was eventually sold to TCI.
And what is "essential"? If put up for a vote, and the voters approve it, does that count?
What about publicly owned utilities? We're going through that right now in the Portland, OR, area. Should the City of Portland try to buy PGE from Enron, or let Texas Pacific buy it, who will then sell it within 5 years and make ONE HELL OF A PROFIT off of the deal, with no public benefit.
In many rural areas (and most of Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, etc.), there are lots of non-business as well as governmental entities that provide essential public services, because the major service providers will never do so.
The only pure free market economies in the US are garage sales and farmers' markets. eBay et al is probably the next level, and then way on the other side of the spectrum there's the rest of the retail-wholesale, traditional "free" market, which more and more is really just becoming corporate socialism or a Zaibatsu-style economy.
Re:It's an old story. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the telecoms are really scared of a muni wifi deployment, it's because they wont be offering a service of any appreciably better value. If they were, they wouldn't be worried about the muni wifi hurting thier business.
The fact that the telecoms are trying to prevent it, is essentially proof that the telecoms are not planning to implement anything signficantly better.
marketplace has less oppression than democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
I hear this all the time from big government fans and communists. The fact is, democracy sucks. The difference between the marketplace and a democracy is, in a marketplace everyone gets to make their own personal decision about what they want while in a democracy the majority impose their will on the minority. For example. Say a group of 10 people are going to vote on an issue. 6 people vote for it and 4 against. This means 6 people get to tell the other 4 what to do. In a marketplace, all 10 people decide what they want. Which one is more free?
Democracy is not as great as advertised. Real freedom is found at the individual level in the marketplace.
Re: public wi-fi (Score:3, Insightful)
Air traffic control
Water
Sewage
Police
Fire department
Tax collection
Border patrol
Defense
War
Re:the problem with democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Government occasionally acts to make sure that the minority are not limited in their freedom, and have choices. This is why, for example, it costs 37 (cent) to send a letter anywhere in the U.S., regardless of how much more it actually costs to get the letter to a remote area. The policy of the U.S. Postal Service, as a government service, is to provide equal service to all Americans. The marketplace, on the other hand, may choose not to go to those areas at all! Where's the choice for the people who live in those areas?
I don't disagree with your point about democracy, however. I definitely didn't vote for tax cuts, war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, but I'm stuck with them because the majority, indirectly and perhaps after-the-fact, did.
No, you are wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny how none of this would apply... (Score:3, Insightful)