Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Government Politics Hardware Technology

FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi 188

Posted by Zonk from the best-fcc-ever dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi More

FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi

Comments Filter:

  • I'm mixfused (Score:5, Funny)

    by Attackman ( 95672 ) * <tom@nOspam.tomtostanoski.com> on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:31PM (#11849948) Homepage Journal
    Am I supposed to like these guys now? It's rare they say anything that I agree with. Who knows, maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV.

    • This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:34PM (#11849964) Journal
      2 of the 5 FCC members are Demcrats. 3 are Republicans.

      • Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tealtalon ( 714179 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:38PM (#11849982)
        I am ignorant on the actual workings of the FCC, but this strikes me as odd. How can a panel of 5 people, with political party ties, have a say over what can and cannot be broadcast or seen in this country.
        This just strikes me as terribly wrong in a very basic way.

        • Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:44PM (#11850021) Homepage Journal
          The FCC is provided certain authority to exercise controls over broadcast and telecommunications media. This is provided by Congress in an effort to provide some level of regulation in the public interest. Members of the FCC are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. They enforce limits on what can be said based on Congressional approval and court decisions.

          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.
        • The airwaves are public domain. They are leased to companies on the condition that their broadcasts make some minium contribution to the public's welfare. This is reasonable, since radio spectrum is a seriously limited resource.
          • " The airwaves are public domain. They are leased to companies on the condition that their broadcasts make some minium contribution to the public's welfare. This is reasonable, since radio spectrum is a seriously limited resource."

            They aren't leased, the use of a particular frequency via a specific method at a specific power level at a specific location is licensed to specific individuals or organizations. In the case of over the air radio and television stations the owners are licensed to operate "in the

        • Actually, there can be no more than 3 people of any one party on the panel.

          So yes, they have party ties, but at least they make an attempt at keeping things 'even' of sorts.
      • 2 of the 5 FCC members are Democrats. 3 are Republicans.

        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 curren

        • Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:39PM (#11850257)
          What does that have to do with the price of fish?

          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.

          • 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.

            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"

          • Re:This "cat" is a "Democrat," not a "Republican" (Score:5, Insightful)

            by zors ( 665805 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:24PM (#11850692)
            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.

            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.
    • Am I supposed to like these guys now? It's rare they say anything that I agree with. Who knows, maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV

      Reading the FCC board?

      Muni WiFi OK

      Boobs on TV not OK

      Surfing pr0n over Muni WiFi ?

      "Officer, that horrible man is looking at women's bare ankles on a computer, over the Municipal Wireless! Oh, I'm so shocked, I've a good mind to write my a letter to my ultra conservative congressional representative!"
      "

    • OT: Re:I'm mixfused (Score:5, Funny)

      by ThisIsFred ( 705426 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:52PM (#11850068) Journal
      Why don't they require something useful, like a boob-cast flag? Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.
    • "maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV."

      Actually, this is the guy who's been advocating the strong FCC push during this time, so I would say that he's definiately NOT in favor.

      From this article [capmag.com]

      Since the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl, there have been strident demands for a crackdown by a tougher, stricter Federal Communication Commission. The FCC's various commissioners now call for the power to regulate cable te

  • Funny how none of this would apply... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:32PM (#11849952)
    ...if he was talking about indecency.
    • Look him up on google, he says he wants to RULE on indecency. Right now the rules are so vague hey have no way to set precedence and he wants to do just that.

      I say its about time people work on rules that are enforceable and not just something on a whim..

    • Yep, because Copps is one of the biggest puritans there when it comes to indecency. Funny how he doesn't depend on the market to deal with that issue...

  • IMichael? (Score:5, Funny)

    by XanC ( 644172 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:33PM (#11849954)
    Is he an Apple product, or does he just chat online a lot?

    Either way, hardcore!

  • YES!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chaos750 ( 854562 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:36PM (#11849967)
    Finally, a politician that makes sense!

    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 =)

  • Be still my heart .... (Score:5, Informative)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:36PM (#11849968)

    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.'

    Someone in the federal government actually understands the role of the federal government? Sad to say, he probably won't last long.

    • He does a lot.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:47PM (#11850038) Homepage Journal
      Search google for him:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+copps&start=0 &s tart=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org. mozilla:en-US:official

      Against Big media, looks out for the indi media and is looking to actually SET RULES instead of "notions" of what is wrong.
    • Unfortunately, you have a high probability of being correct in drawing this conclusion. Both common sense AND a sense of fair play (eg. level playing field for competition) seem to be in very short supply with the current regime.

      This is definately OT, but I am reminded of a small Kansas meatpacking company that spent millions of dollars to build a new facility. Their goal was to test each and every cow for BSE, in order to cater to the beef import markets of Japan and Korea. Dubya's USDA and FDA forbade

  • make up your mind! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:38PM (#11849983) Journal
    either wifi is a public infrastructure like roads and rails or its not. if it is, the "state" in its more general sense has a power and an obligation to see that this data road of the radio frequencies reaches all the citizens and it has the power to collect our taxes to make sure the infrastructure is adequate in capacity and properly maintained.
    if its NOT, then let the moneygrubbing telco's sharpen their knives and move in.
    but as I road-warrior-drive about, I don't want to be disconnected at every jurisdictional and regulatory boundary such as state lines and city limits.

    • Re:make up your mind! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:50PM (#11850060)
      In one of those cases the government shouldn't be telling communities not to build local wifi coverage unless that government already has plans to do it for them, and in the other case the government shouldn't be telling communities not to build local wifi coverage under any circumstances.

      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.

      • I hope you mean "regular joe schmoes" when mentioning "communities" and not "the local government", because the free market economy was certainly NOT intended to have the government compete with business on non-essential services to the public...that's wrong on so many levels.
        • This is Slashdot - I can't believe you used the word "non-essential" to describe internet service! How DARE you, sir!

          In all seriousness, however, this latest comment has only reaffirmed my faith in government agencies to do the Right Thing (tm). But only enough to be dashed by their next policy decision, whatever that might be. I hate when they get my hopes up just enough to string me along and crush me later...
        • A community can mean a lot of things, but in this case, it happens to mean a group of like minded people, that choose to live within the same jurasdiction for the purposes of property taxation. They do normally expect to recieve some level of services in return for that property tax. In some areas, it consists mainly of water and sewer service. In other areas, it may also include police services. If that group of people choose to include wifi within the service set they deploy, who are you to say they c
        • because the free market economy was certainly NOT intended to have the government compete with business on non-essential services to the public...that's wrong on so many levels.

          I suggest you learn some economic history. Some of the very first corporations were to fund the building of toll bridges which competed directly with the roads that were government funded.
        • You people are missing the point. Yes, I am a libertarian, however I never discussed the advantages or disadvantages of a free market economy. All I was saying is that in one, government does not compete with private industry.
    • Its not an area where laws are consistent except to the extent that they have been consistently manipulated by/for the benefit of large companies. Analogies to railroads are apt but dangerous: a century and a half ago, our government knew it needed rails badly to make commerce efficient and mobility of the population easier. IT GAVE AWAY LAND AND GRANTED OR TOLERATED MONOPOLIES just to meet those objectives and the Goulds, ROCKEFELLERs and a host of other robber barons saw their chance. The debate about wh
    • Why not? Either as you're roving there's free wife, or there's not. The fact that it's not the same everywhere realistically doesn't burden you at all.

      Different and creative approaches to different goods and needs is what a federalist, representative republic is all about.
    • I don't want to be disconnected at every jurisdictional and regulatory boundary such as state lines and city limits.

      it's been a while since i was on a road trip in the US but at least here in Canada, roads don't end at municipal, privincial or even the southern border. apparently municipalities and provinces and even countries are able to communicate with each other about connecting their traffic grids seamlessly, so why should it not work for a communications network?
      since telcos are in it for the money,
    • Excuse me - rails aren't public infrastructure. The local system through Seattle is owned by BNSF.
  • i hate the FCC, just let me be me... I forgot the rest of the words --- http://onticfusion.sytes.net/ [sytes.net]

  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <<pathighgate> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:38PM (#11849992) Homepage Journal
    I love reading about this; this idea that the airwaves ultimatly belong to the public. The idea that the public can't use their own airwaves because a company wants to make money off of it just chaps my hide.

    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:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:44PM (#11850027) Homepage Journal
      VOTE.

      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.
      • So which one do we vote for - the Republican one who will appoint an FCC leader who wishes to fine broadcasters based on morality or the Democratic one who will apoint one who wishes to turn TV into a cheap nanny?
      • someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way

        And you see what candidate running for office who fulfills that criteria. Our last choice was between Mr. Fascist and Mr. Spineless. The Red State Americans have decided to punish the Wall Street elite by voting Republican. The Rockefeller Republicans now run the Democratic party.

        Voting ain't gonna do it.

      • Re:Yes (Score:2)

        by hyfe ( 641811 )
        but vote because someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way.

        Sounds cool, know of any parties that supports this?

    • Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)

      by DoraLives ( 622001 )
      The idea that the public can't use their own airwaves because a company wants to make money off of it just chaps my hide.

      Concur.

      But there's hope. We're now able to get all our weather data directly from the NWS office of our choosing, as opposed to having to get it from some bogus subscription service [accuweather.com] that just regurgitates our own data that we had already bought and paid for, back at us.

      Maybe things will shake out alright with wireless?

  • Clearly there are alternate-universe versions of Copps and Powell running around doing good for the country!

    Has anyone checked them for goatees?

  • Today in Bizarro Land (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:44PM (#11850020)
    We're happy Microsoft won a court motion. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/2016235.shtml ?tid=109&tid=123 [slashdot.org]

    Justice is served in the American court system. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/0531204.shtml ?tid=155&tid=123 [slashdot.org]

    Half of Slashdot is mad at Apple. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/04/138234.sh tml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=3 [slashdot.org]

    The FCC is our friend. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/1828200.shtml ?tid=153&tid=187&tid=123 [slashdot.org]

    What happened to predictability?

    • Re:Today in Bizarro Land (Score:3, Informative)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) *
      Half of Slashdot is mad at Apple. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/04/138234.s h tml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=3

      Oh we shouldn't be mad at Apple. They are being businessmen even if they are being assholes. I don't expect anything less. Who I am pissed at is the fucking judge who decided that he can determine who and who isn't a journalist.

      Sorry but journalists shouldn't be required to work for a "commercial entity" in order to be considered one. That only gives protections to the employees of
      • Uh, even "real" journalists can be subpoenaed and required to divulge sources. If they refuse, it's contempt of court. Journalists aren't "special" in any legal sense.
        • Depends. Shield Laws exist in some states which allow journalists to avoid revealing sources (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the wording of the law in question). California, or instance, has a very strong shield law, last I looked.

    • Re:Today in Bizarro Land (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      Well, according to the BBC, today (4th March) is the day Charlie Chaplin got knighted [bbc.co.uk]. This is clearly Slashdot's way of commemorating it.

  • Unlicensed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grozzie2 ( 698656 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:51PM (#11850064)
    The fcc should have only one comment to this whole issue. 802.11 is unlicensed. As long as the equipment in use falls within the emissioins requirements of unlicensed, what part of the word 'unlicensed' do the rest of the levels of government not understand. They also need to remind the rest of the various levels of government, wifi is a service based on radio transmissions. FCC rulings trump all other levels of government in this area.

  • Hell just froze over (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nonillion ( 266505 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:05PM (#11850123)
    It's amazing when the FCC actually gets something, now if we can get them to reconsider the spectrum polluting BPL decision and that pesky broadcast flag.
  • The quarter fell edge on today!

    Usually, when the FCC passes jugement, it's usually for SIGs (special interest groups) that are sponsored by either big bells, or politicos.

    But today, Vonage got the better of a baby bell, and now THIS! ^.^

    I'm right proud of our political system.. It maybe creaky and downright questionable at times, but when it does work, DAMM, nice things do happen!

  • It's an old story. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:20PM (#11850194) Homepage

    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)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:25PM (#11850211)
    "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."

    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.

    • WiMAX will be out soon, and is a far better solution for this problem.

      In case you havn't noticed the pattern yet there's ALLWAYS something better just around the corner. Then it comes out and is expensive, unreliable, and often a bit of a disappointment performance wise. Then the tech. matures and comes down in price but by the there's something even better just around the corner. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      These Muni WiFi projects are ill conceived and expensive. I know this, but if I'm not in the majo

    • The point of a marketplace is that it provides freedom to choose products and services you want.

      The marketplace works very well in some cases when left alone, in others the public benefits more when government provides an impetus. I see nothing wrong with this, nor do I feel a degree of loyalty to the "free market" over and above my own and my community's interest. If this works well for the most people, then so be it.

    • For many services the cost of billing for the service can outweigh the cost of providing the service. Roads are an example of this. WiFi another. For about $1 person/month a community can provide universal internet providing it makes no attempt to bill for universal internet.
      • It's going to cost a whole lost more than a dollar per person-month to fund this thing. Especially if price isn't correlated to bandwidth usage and people get used to a fast connection. It's a classic illustration of the "split-the-check" problem. It's also part of the reason that routine healthcare is so expensive in the US.
        • Why do you think its going to cost a lot? How is this different than companies which provide high levels of bandwidth for each employee?

  • We need more guys with this mindset in Washington.

  • Just to start a little discussion... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marran Gray ( 722447 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:47PM (#11850542) Journal

    As a fun little thought exercise, think about municipal wireless and liability. For that matter, think about any public wireless and liability. We can probably dispose with reasonable expectation of privacy, since it's an open network, but what about spoofing? What if someone hijacks the municipal net and does bad things to the users? What if someone (locally) takes down the municipal net and (locally) sets up a phony replacement?

    Now, think about the differences between a network maintained by the government and one maintained by a private interest. Discuss.

  • 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.

    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.
    • I have heard rumors that shareholders can vote. Guess what? I have also heard rumors that sometimes some shareholders don't get what they want!
    • You're not taking monopolies into account. In fact, your entire argument is assinine.

      If 8 out of 10 people patronize a certain company, product, player in the industry..whatever..then its a good assumption that the remaining two will eventually, because of monopolistic conditions, patronize what the other 8 are as well.

      Look at consumer OS market. Microsoft controls what, like 90 percent of the marketplace... leaving a fraction of a percent for *nix derivatives. In that kind of marketplace, MS is able to b

  • Commodity or Utility (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 0x0000 ( 140863 )

    Whereas bandwidth and internet access should be utilitarian - that is: like potable water, access to the global information networks should be something that is a) trivially accessible in a civilized society, and b) raises the quality of life for everyone who has access to it.

    The telco approach is to retain access to the internet - and wifi acccess in particular - as a commodity.

    It's about time somebody at the FCC started doing their job. It'll be interesting to see how successful this particular David

  • > 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

    As long as the munincipalities don't try to outlaw the Bells, etc. from providing, either.

    Like they did with cable -- one cable company only, with kickbacks, poor service, no competition. Thanks, government!

  • Let's consider the situation... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ebrandsberg ( 75344 ) on Saturday March 05, 2005 @10:31AM (#11852364)
    City turns on city-wide wireless. Everybody with cable modems and dsl say "great, I'll cancel my service now". Slowly, that 11Mb/s (ideal) connection you connected to as the first one to use it in your neighborhood gets shared with 100 other people. Result? Speeds similar to dialup IF everything works right. Now tie in bittorrent bandwidth, and everything goes to the shitter. The only way wireless networks to work well is for there to be few enough users so they don't get congested in a given area. Once free service comes online, there will be so much congestion, nobody will WANT to be on it, and it disrupted the ability for other companies to make money on reliable services (as much as they are).

    Someone will come back and point out you can get more than 11 Mb/s out of this stuff, let's assume 54Mb/s, or even 100Mb/s. In the end it will still reach saturation, everybody will have to be throttled at some low amount of bandwidth to keep things fair, and service overall will be crap. I can't even keep a 802.11B connection stable from across a room (nothing in between) due to interference, much less across a city block. Leave this stuff to the pros to figure out a reliable way to deliver internet.
    • Leave this stuff to the pros to figure out a reliable way to deliver internet.

      Why do you assume a municipal government is incapable of hiring a professional to perform city services?

      Do you find a lack of "pros" working at the department of sanitation? department of water and sewers? What about the many municipal utility companies? Some of which operate nuclear reactors?
      • Wireless is the wrong medium for high-speed internet access with the technology available today. Basically you are assuming ANYBODY can get good wifi coverage, and if it's free, it implicitly WILL suck if only from overuse and/or restrictions in service that are needed to keep it from being saturated. I'm not commenting as much on the government not being able to hire the best people, I'm questioning if that will even matter. The "Pros" have chosen to use DSL and Cable as the delivery medium, and I don't
  • 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... They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'"

    So, Commissioner Copps, you *ARE* for Low Power FM boardcasting, then, aren't you? You will recall that a study was done after the NAB complained tha

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close