Austinist: City Wide Wi-Fi? Why Not.

Reed Becker

Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:43:28 -0600

My point was that, as you may have noticed, was that this was an issue EVERYONE needs to address. Removing one portion of the equation will only hinder further efforts in this realm. Falling into the standard "Big Government" complaint ignores the good work that government organizations actually do. In fact, it often seems a knee jerk response. I have not noticed complete chaos out in the street lately. Last time I checked, it seemed to me that while various levels of government set outlines, it is usually the private citizen that sets up the solution. Lets come up with an answer that benefits everyone, where everyone is involved. And if you are concerned with the lack of private citizens involved, please write the legislature, start a website, or even a non-profit organization to promote private sector action on this very important issue. There is a neato site called Google that may help you find out exactly what House Bill 789 does, so that you can promote your ideas of private involvement.

Sven Johnson

Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:49:58 -0600

Once again, why do we need the city to provide us with free wireless? I don't want to get on the wrong side of this issue, but why should this become a service that the city provides? And what obstacles would this bill cause for private residents doing it themselves?

ttrentham

Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:33:11 -0600

Even worse, there are situations where there is no company providing internet access and no incentive for them to do so. In these cases, it's the municipality bridging the gap. If it's illegal for the municipality to do it and the telecom or cable company won't because it's not profitable or economically feasible for them, where does that leave the people who can't get access?

Reed Becker

Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:23:57 -0600

To my way of thinking, what has to be shown to the various internet providers who oppose the bill is that, in terms of long range vison, it is best for EVERYONE, including the providers, in terms of pure utility. The truth is, for society, again in terms of pure utility, it would be better if laptops were $300 and internet access were availiable to everyone, probably in the form of some sort of subcontratced municipal tax . And we will get there, it just may be 15 years instead of 5. The old models don't exist, and companies have to evolve with the times, instead of holding up progress. As they say, a surfer never stands still.

Adam Weinroth

Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:20:34 -0600

Let's just get the core of the issue out on the table: Companies who stand to benefit from selling wireless services don't want to compete with free municipal services. So they have taken it upon themselves to puppeteer certain members of the Texas legislature into putting forth HB789. Sure, there are many reasons for cities not to offer wireless services. But there is no reason to blanket-legislate prohibition of muni wireless if the city deems it a worthwhile investement in economic development, communications infrastructure or any other aspect of making where you live a better place. For those who feel that it's inappropriate for your city to handle wireless services, that is a completely valid standpoint. But just because muni wireless services are not illegal doesn't mean that they must be further developed. The public discourse and decision making can very easily happen at the municipal level. More useful info and action opportunities at http://savemuniwireless.org.