A Florida legislator has introduced
legislation that would effectively ban municipalities from providing wireless internet access to their residents.
Of course, as this article notes,
The legislation is backed by telecommunication giants that sell wi-fi service themselves, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Bright House Networks.
Several dozen cities nationwide, most notably Philadelphia, have jumped on the wireless bandwagon in order to broaden residents' access to information.
Read more about the Florida bill below the jump. And take the poll.
This bill couldn't have been friendlier to the telecom lobby. I wonder which corporation wrote the text of the legislation...
Some choice excerpts:
"Except as specified in subsection (4), no overnmental authority shall provide a covered service or a facility used to provide a covered service."
"(4)(a) Any governmental authority that is supplying a covered service on May 1, 2005, shall be permitted to continue supplying such service; however, the governmental authority may not extend or expand its services or service areas for existing or new subscribers."
I could go on an on... you really need to read the bill for yourself.
Incidentally, the legislator in question represents a city that does provide WiFi for most of its residents, and the program is immensely popular. The existing program would be grandfathered in, but would not be allowed to expand as is currently planned.
Even the conservative Orlando Sentinel has taken a strong stsnd against the bill:
Elected officials --
particularly Republicans -- love to pontificate about the virtues of a free-market economy, how competition theoretically offers consumers a wide range of services for the best possible price.
We couldn't agree more.
That's why a measure moving through the Florida House of Representatives, limiting competition in the emerging telecommunications field, is so utterly perplexing. The proposal effectively would give private companies a lock on providing services such as high-speed wireless Internet access and fiber-optic communication links by restricting the ability of municipal governments to offer similar services. That's just nuts.
There are plenty of reasons for local governments to offer telecommunications services, including enhanced economic-development opportunities, a well-coordinated emergency system, more computer-savvy schools and Internet access for all residents, regardless of income. More important, though, private-sector telecommunications companies are committed to the corporate bottom line -- not what may be in a community's best interest. And that can be an inherent conflict.
So, how bad of an idea is this? Precisely why is it wrong? Take the poll.