WiFi Internet

[elecpharm]

it's always about the mighty dollar! this angers me.

No free WiFi for you!

By DWIGHT SILVERMAN

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

RESOURCES

MORE TECHBLOG: Read Computing columnist Dwight Silverman's daily technology musings

Several Web sites that watch the growing tension between governments that want to offer free WiFi access and the telecom companies that want to profit from it have spotted a nasty provision in a bill in the Texas Legislature.

Chip Rosenthal, an Austin-based computer consultant, is particularly horrified at language in the bill that would prohibit governments from offering free access.

Sec. 54.202. PROHIBITED MUNICIPAL SERVICES. A municipality or municipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public:

(1) a service for which a certificate is required;

(2) a service as a network provider; or

(3) any telecommunications or information service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service.

Other sites have taken note of this, including MuniWireless.com and WiFiNetNews.com.

The bill also would block any public-private partnerships, such as the one the City of Houston is pondering for the citywide WiFi initiative I wrote about last year. The city already has free WiFi in some public libraries, and is expanding that program. It's unclear if this would apply to counties, since the bill specifically mentions cities, but the Harris County Public Library system also has free WiFi.

Obviously, this needs to dropped into the folder marked "Evil."

While I personally think free WiFi is an excellent use of public money, there is a valid argument that it puts governments in unfair competition with companies who want to offer it for a price. But banning public-private partnerships? That's just Draconian. It could be interpreted in a way that would prevent Houston's airport system from granting access to its facilities to a private WiFi provider.

Texas is not alone. This is part of a battle taking place across the country, in which telecom giants are lobbying hard to maintain sway over what they see as a high-growth market. The most publicly visible battleground for this is in Philadelphia.

The Austin chapter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting it, but will its voice be loud enough to be heard over the shrieks of the telecom industry's swarming lobbyists? I'm not optimistic.

Want to contact your legislator about it? Here are lists of state senators and representatives. You can find out who represents your ZIP code here

Save Muni Wireless

Update: There's a Web site -- Save Muni Wireless -- that is serving as a rallying point for opposition.

[bruce_oneal]

it's always about the mighty dollar! this angers me.

No free WiFi for you!

By DWIGHT SILVERMAN

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

RESOURCES

MORE TECHBLOG: Read Computing columnist Dwight Silverman's daily technology musings

Several Web sites that watch the growing tension between governments that want to offer free WiFi access and the telecom companies that want to profit from it have spotted a nasty provision in a bill in the Texas Legislature.

Chip Rosenthal, an Austin-based computer consultant, is particularly horrified at language in the bill that would prohibit governments from offering free access.

    Sec. 54.202. PROHIBITED MUNICIPAL SERVICES. A municipality or municipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public:

    (1) a service for which a certificate is required;

    (2) a service as a network provider; or

    (3) any telecommunications or information service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service.

Other sites have taken note of this, including MuniWireless.com and WiFiNetNews.com.

The bill also would block any public-private partnerships, such as the one the City of Houston is pondering for the citywide WiFi initiative I wrote about last year. The city already has free WiFi in some public libraries, and is expanding that program. It's unclear if this would apply to counties, since the bill specifically mentions cities, but the Harris County Public Library system also has free WiFi.

Obviously, this needs to dropped into the folder marked "Evil."

While I personally think free WiFi is an excellent use of public money, there is a valid argument that it puts governments in unfair competition with companies who want to offer it for a price. But banning public-private partnerships? That's just Draconian. It could be interpreted in a way that would prevent Houston's airport system from granting access to its facilities to a private WiFi provider.

Texas is not alone. This is part of a battle taking place across the country, in which telecom giants are lobbying hard to maintain sway over what they see as a high-growth market. The most publicly visible battleground for this is in Philadelphia.

The Austin chapter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting it, but will its voice be   loud enough to be heard over the shrieks of the telecom industry's swarming lobbyists? I'm not optimistic.

Want to contact your legislator about it? Here are lists of state senators and representatives. You can find out who represents your ZIP code here

Save Muni Wireless

Update: There's a Web site -- Save Muni Wireless -- that is serving as a rallying point for opposition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

from what i've read lately this bill got no support.

[ssullivan]

Good. I hope it dies a quick death. It's doing nothing but targeting communities where most people wouldn't be able to afford broadband service on their own, so they aren't likely customers of the commercial broadband providers anyway.

And in wealthier areas, people will still more likely pay for their own broadband access rather than take advantage of free Wi-Fi provided by the city because it's faster and more secure.

[ricco67]

In some instances, there are people that gladly broadcast their signal for other people to hop on (while securing their own networks) to use the internet.

I've thought about doing that in my building for awhile.....for a nominal fee, though.

Ricco

[ssullivan]

My building is full of personal Wi-Fi networks. I have one of them, although mine is not broadcasting its SSID and is secured on multiple levels to prevent others from taking advantage of it. However, at least three of the signals within range of my living room are unsecured, and one is totally unsecured with all of the factory settings. I was once able to get into their router using hte default Linksys password and could have changed all the settings had I wanted to. There's also three or four secured access points within range as well. I will admit that one day when my signal from Time Warner was down I did hop on one of my neighbor's unsecured access points for a while.

[jm1fd]

My building is full of personal Wi-Fi networks. I have one of them, although mine is not broadcasting its SSID and is secured on multiple levels to prevent others from taking advantage of it. However, at least three of the signals within range of my living room are unsecured, and one is totally unsecured with all of the factory settings. I was once able to get into their router using hte default Linksys password and could have changed all the settings had I wanted to. There's also three or four secured access points within range as well. I will admit that one day when my signal from Time Warner was down I did hop on one of my neighbor's unsecured access points for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a business across the street from my building with an unsecured connection....and that connection just happens to be on a T1. You wouldn't believe how fast you can pull down an ep of Desperate Housewives on a T1.

[bruce_oneal]

March 24, 2005, 7:13AM

TECHBLOG

Partial city WiFi ban restored in House

By DWIGHT SILVERMAN

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

looks like this is back in the news...

As expected, a ban on municipal wireless Internet services was restored to HB 789 during debate on the House floor Wednesday, but with some twists, as reported by Save Muni Wireless:

The amended bill would add a new section 54.2022 that prohibits municipalities from charging for wireless services. Existing services would be grandfathered. New services could be offered only on an amenity (i.e., free) basis. Cities can set up public/private partnerships where a private ISP provides service for a fee.

Cities would have until September 1, 2006 to setup these services (or until June 15, 2006 to inform the PUC about their plans to set up a service). After that, cities would be prohibited from offering wireless access�free or otherwise.

This thing reads like it was written by a bad programmer, with lots of poorly formed if'/then/else calls. For the non-technical among you, please see the much older joke about committees, horses and camels.

Fortunately, the bill -- which has other, unpleasant provisions -- is expected to have a tougher time in the Texas Senate. Let's hope it dies there.