What is Digg?74 Comments
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wholeheartedly believe that the federal government should not be in the business of creating or subsidizing these kinds of networks, however nothing in the Constitution forbids *local* governments from taking that initiative, and presumably the local governments know a little bit better what their constituents want. Especially in the kinds of small towns where a lot of these municipal networks are popping up. If a small town or city wants to go ahead and build one of these networks, and the voters approve, I don't think the federal government has any business telling them that they can't do it.
- danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2as usual, the name of this proposal is completely misleading: "Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act."
- danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the case for the government comes down to economic theory. if it is a privately own venture, they city government will be able to collect revenue from taxes it generates. However, most of these networks that have been built in cities such as Spokane, WA. and Dayton, OH. are meant to attract high tech businesses to relocate their operations to their city which in term will begin to develop a high tech industry, bring more jobs and generate more tax revenue.
- Monkey_Kebab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep... The ISP's claim they can't afford to bring broadband to smaller communities, but they don't seem to have any problem finding the money to lobby against these communities funding their own high speed service!
There's more info on this subject here: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/digidividedebate.html - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please point out where it states in this bill that it is to outlaw free internet access, danlin.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why should the government get into the ISP business? I see no reason why taxpayer funds should be spent to provide free internet to everyone. There are a lot more important issues to be faced before anything like this should even be considered.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK.
"...eliminate GOVERNMENT managed competition of existing communication services..."
Now, what I posted up above:
"Why should the GOVERNMENT get into the ISP business? I see no reason why taxpayer funds should be spent to provide free internet to everyone. There are a lot more important issues to be faced before anything like this should even be considered."
Now, do you believe there is such a thing as government provided free internet where no taxpayer funds are involved? - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you DO NOT wan't government managed WiFi. Are you feaking kidding me? How about law envoforcment access... if the government runs it... the law will have a lot less trouble getting access. This law may be a bunch of bull, and I for one think that localalities should be able to do this if they wan't, but you DO NOT WANT IT.
All the crap that we suffer through because of the cable/phone/power monoplies will seem like small potatoes when those polotitions control your access to information. Frak the HELL out of that!
Besides, if I don't use it I don't want to HAVE to pay for it. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You declare my point moot because you refuse to see my point that taxpayer funds don't need to be spent on services already provided by commercial companies.
Your point is moot because wouldn't it be easier for the RIAA and MPAA to track software pirates if the government did own the network they were on?
So, does the town you live in provide free internet to all it's citizens? Is that why you are so up in arms over this? - psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This is America! Justice should favor the rich!"
A Simpsons quote for every occasion. - M4K3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's right, they must've forgotten that WiFi was a constitutional and civil right...stupid politicians.
- danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WackyT, your point is moot because you are not staying on the topic of this post. Government is subsidizing (aka spending taxpayers money) whether it is free or not.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the end. now go to sleep kiddies.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Welcome back danlin. I'm totally on topic. You're just refusing to see what this bill says.
- digit9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jayhawks, my comments were just another way to look at the issue. For me this isn't an issue of higher taxes, it's an issue of local Governments making decisions for their own communities. Some thing the old GOP use to stand for.
"Seeing as you started name calling, you are a very good Democrat. Increasing the size and influence of government into the lives of citizens is your party's number one "cause". And you are pushing that principle excellently."
I find this a comical statement from the right. Look at what they are doing now. They are dictating what local governments can and can not do. That is something the right has always been against. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"As for "competition" I can't choose any other phone lines or cable TV than the one that has the monopoly on my area. So "private" companies providing a service instead of the govt doesn't mean squat."
So, you are for this bill then. This bill will eliminate all state and local franchise requirements for all video providers, including telephone companies moving into the field. The Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act aims to level the playing field between telephone, cable and satellite companies while opening the door for the delivery of emerging broadband services. - cjhowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This bill simply keeps municipalities from getting in their own way. SBC last year pledged to bury over 6 billion dollars of fiber optic cable over the next three to five years. What incentive do they have to do this if they are faced with competing with free access? If they don't fulfill their pledge and the competitive backlash from others, what will be accessible to those municipalities in five years? 11 mbps wi-fi at a high maintenance cost to the citizens? If they do full fill their pledge, 1 gbps or more at a cost to only those that use it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0digit, government doesn't belong in this at either the federal or local levels. The Fed is wrong to infringe upon the state's right for something that is not a national issue. The BS in the bill about the "resulting patchwork" of local governments is a weak justification for federal intervention. State and city governments should not be in the business of providing luxury items for its citizens. Some would argue that government shouldn't be giving handouts period. I disagree when it comes to necessities.
My second point is that if you are going to address me directly in your post, make sure that you address the others in your post directly. I didn't say what you quoted about "the name calling," however, it appears to be directed at me. Please afford that courtesy. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"There are a lot more important issues to be faced before anything like this should even be considered."
yes there are. the government should solve these issues before they start telling towns that they arent allowed to provide their citizens with free internet access if they want to. who cares if gas prices are getting higher and higher and people are starving in africa. wouldnt you rather have the government protect comcast from some elderly farmer in ohio who doesnt want to pay for one of them there fancy new fangled internets but still wants to be able to be in contact with the outside world. the internet is basically a necessity in modern american society, and i think that making it free (or at least cheaper) is a trend that we should incourage, not discourage. the government wastes your tax money on all sorts of stupid crap. at least with free wifi you get some benefit out of it while they spend billions investigating baseball and fighting to keep them from pulling the plug on some dead lady.
"the poor cannot afford the computer needed for the internet."
when was the last time you priced an old P3 system? that is more than enough computer for simple web browsing. - suMMx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i hate our government, they are retarded
- spid3rfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Stuff like this is nonsense. The government just can't stand not making money on things. I hate the government.
- sleepless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The city of Alexandria in Northern Virginia offer free wifi.
http://wireless.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000633046293/ - danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you point is moot since this post is about the federal government disallowing municipal government to provide free wifi. it is a matter of one jurisdiction trying to trump the other. as far as I'm concerned, the federal government is attempting to step on the municipal government in order to satisfy their deep pocket lobbyists who have a lot to lose by not being able to track the identity and usage or users who are on free networks. specifically the RIAA and the MPAA who will have a hard time figuring out who to address their cease and desist letters to.
- danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WackyT, about this first page right below the BOLD letters 'Bill'
"...eliminate goverment managed competition of existing communication services..."
That means no city-owned free wifi. - Brackhar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This bill is not "banning" free WiFi - you would still pay for the WiFi service, but isntead of having the option of canceling or halting payments as a result of poor service the money would instead be taken directly from your paycheck as part of taxes.
Given the choice between a government sponsored WiFi and a privately sponsored WiFi, I'll take the latter anyday. At least then I can decide not to pay for it. - caldroun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Next thing you know they will be mandating digital television service....oh wait.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0City parks are not in competition with amusement parks. And back to "free" internet access. This bill does not BAN municipalities from establishing their own internet service.
"The legislation also targets state and local governments considering establishing their own broadband networks. Under the bill, local municipalities must give the private sector notice before going into business for themselves and allow non-government providers to bid on the project."
http://www.opticallynetworked.com/news/article.php/3523411
If no non-genvernment provider wishes to bid on the project, then the municipality is free to do as they please.
Now let's put the other hat on. Why stop at being an ISP. Why not provide free cell phone service, phoneline service, cable TV service, electricity, gas (both automotive and LNG), housing, and food. Aren't you sick of paying for those also? - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The government already offers free internet - just goto the library.
- darkstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm with WackyT. While we're at it, let's get rid of city parks too. Clearly, Six Flags could provide us with all our park needs. Why spend our tax dollars on free parks.
Wait, that's right, parks and greenspace makes cities attractive places to live and work. The quality of life may just rise, and businesses may choose to locate near such a town. Hey, that argument works for free wifi access too. I think I've changed my mind. Municipal governments and their citizens should be free to do what they freakin' want to improve the quality of life and business quality of the community without the Federal government stomping all over them. But I guess liberty and representative government died in this country a long time ago. - vdub12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The biggest problem here is a lot of these towns that want to do this don't have high speed Internet so they want to give it to there citizens for free because the ISP's claim it is not worth the money they would make to roll it out. But on the same note the ISP's don't want cities to give it away for free because when they do finally decide to roll out there high speed Internet they will have to compete with the free services.
I think this is completely stupid. Right now I have to use crappy satellite Internet because these company's don't think I am important enough to give me real high speed Internet but on the same hand they don't want me to get it at all unless its with them. Some day. - coffeepro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whether it is government sponsored WiFi or privately sponsored WiFi it will not be exactly free. The "free" version consists of the lowest speed possible and constant advertising. Anyone remember "free" advertised based dial-up of the late nineties? It fell by the wayside. Heh both Netzero and Kmart Bluelight advertised "free internet for life".
- TetrisKid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Free WiFi for the public means more money for the public to spend on other things. Therefore I think it is a good thing"
There is NO such thing as "free" anything. Somebody has to pay for it at some point. This "free" WiFi is just an increase in tax for everyone even if they never use the network. Users should pay for the network while people who are too poor or don't even have a computer to access it shouldn't. Making everyone pay so a select few can enjoy is socialism. - danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0south korea spends more money per capita on the internet than of the leading countries in the world including the U.S.. Why is that you ask? the government subsides broadband to every household. once the infrastructure is in, the overhead for supplying the service is close to nothing unlike gas, electricity, television, water and every other utility. Any comparison to such utilities are ignorant.
- danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wackyt, yi dont think you know your analogies to well. by the support of this post, looks to me that you are in the minority. I'll answer that question for brandonyoung as rhetorical as your intentions are. the city of LA charges everyone for electricity. However, if there was an inexpensive way to offer electricity to certain parts of the city without the overhead of the individuals, there should not be a law prohibiting it.
Although you make your position seem as if you are against government control, in reality, you are supporting useless legislation that costs everyone time and money in the senate which means time and money for every tax paying citizen of this country.
Until you start make any sense with regards to your argument, i suggest everyone tag your comments as 'off topic' or 'spam' - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0danlin, my analogies are just fine. Another question. Does L.A. charge everyone the same amount no matter how much electricity they use?
Actually, this bill is killing a lot of government regulations concerning franchises, and opening up the market to competitors, if you take the time to read it.
So now you're promoting censorship. Iran and China would be real proud of you, danlin. - Brandonyoung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Los Angeles has its own department to provide electricity to the city. I think that this is a good example of a city government providing a service that could be provided by a private company instead. The rest of the state has power provided by private companies. But while the rest of the state was having brown outs and price increases, Los angeles was able to avoid the mess that the rest of the state was in.
I think it is a similar situation with other cities providing internet service. If the people in a city think they can sustain an internet service through the city, instead of through a private company, it should be allowed. - digit9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Free WiFi for the public means more money for the public to spend on other things. Therefore I think it is a good thing.
Think about this for a minute people. Add up how much you spend on cell phones, land lines, broadband and cable every month. In my case we're talking over $200. Maybe if I had an extra $200 a month I could afford to go to that mom and pa ice cream shop down the street and support them. Maybe I could afford to spend my money in many other places and support many other companies instead of giving my money to just a select few companies so they can, in turn, take that money and buy a bunch of lobbists to write laws that support them and not the people.....sh!t say that all in one breath.
I'm all for free internet. I'm all for free parks, libraries and anything else that improves the quality of life in this country. I'm sorry, but I can't support big business. But I can support little business. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL! My icon is just fine. And I'm sure after the "Hot Coffee" incident, quite a few diggers agree with it.
Seeing as you started name calling, you are a very good Democrat. Increasing the size and influence of government into the lives of citizens is your party's number one "cause". And you are pushing that principle excellently.
Well, I'm gonna watch a movie, and go to bed. I'll leave you in the very incapable hands of danlin. - danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WackyT wrote: "...if you take the time to read it..."
If i remember clearly farther up this page, you were the one who couldnt understand the first paragraph of this bill and needed me to hold your hand and walk you to it.
I did read this bill and I don't disagree that there are some good things this particular bill will do. I may support a variation of this bill but not this one.
You are giving republicans a bad name. I recommend that you tone down the rheteric and get a new use image while you are at it. its barely half way past 2005. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't see that happening in the near future. Too much money on the table.
Besides, we all know the politicians don't favor the will of our citizens, instead they favor big business. - danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0btw, i do not have wifi in my city and it is not even close to considering it. For those cities that do already have wifi, there is a provision in the bill that states that they can keep the existing system but they cant expand on it. this shows that the only concern or city-operated free wifi systems is that they will reducing profits for the companies the lobbyists represent.
- M4K3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jayhawks 71 is right, govt should not be involved with this issue one bit...well the US govt at least.
Oh yea, and most monopolies (wonder if you could consider the govt a monopoly) are created by your hero politicians taking campaign donations in exchange for legislating laws to help those same companies. - spstanley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe I'm not understanding the phrasing here, but the language doesn't seem to say that free public wifi would be illegal. It does say that any state or local government seeking to provide service shall "...give a detailed accounting..." of "...any free or below cost rights-of-way...."
It also says that a nettral party in the bidding would give preference to a non-governmental entity.
But I don't see where it says the government can't provide free wifi. Not that I'm for it; I'd rather have fiber to my house, which at least a couple governments have decided to do. Looks like they'd have the same hurdles as wifi, though. - Brackhar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll second that VHost, that's a portion of the bill I did not catch after my inital cursory review.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmmm.
http://www.digg.com/technology/Salt_Lake_City_to_have_free_wireless_downtown - TurkishSquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sent an e-mail to my senator telling her (in longer words) that I thought the bill was *****.
- jhawksley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If this bill passes, we shouldn't pay taxes for roads either as not *everyone* uses them. My parents both walk to work.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, digit9, you actually think free WiFi is free? And you think that if a city installs free WiFi, they're going to give you free cell phone service, free telephone landline service, free cable television service, and free at home broadband service?
Hmmm. - Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yet again the inevitable future is delayed by greedy businessmen. I've gone from understanding but not hoping for the fall of our "capitalistic" world society; now I'm praying for it.
- vhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The real issue here folks is more than wi-fi. The real issue is this bill strips the states and local governments of any regulatory power over telecom and cable providers. This will lead to local monopolies, which means high prices and lousy service.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is