tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post6191761010100511640..comments2023-04-04T12:05:39.103-04:00Comments on The MTTLR Blog: Questions Raised by Municipal Control of Wi-FiMTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-57793153693330666472007-12-03T15:40:00.000-05:002007-12-03T15:40:00.000-05:00You might be interested in this law review article...You might be interested in this law review article on municipal wireless as well. Companies Positioned in the Middle: Municipal Wireless and Its Impact on Privacy and Free Speech, 41 U.S.F. L. Rev. 635 (2007). <BR/><BR/>Available online at http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/asset_upload_file77_6023.pdf<BR/><BR/><BR/>And this symposium recently hosted by NYU Law School on municipal wireless. http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/symposium/fall2007.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-43513026966083845012007-11-04T12:06:00.000-05:002007-11-04T12:06:00.000-05:00That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought abo...That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about the likely speeds of the municipal wi-fi, but I'm not surprised it's not lightning-fast. The continued competition would definitely keep some level of pressure on the city/county/whatever.<BR/><BR/>If speeds are very slow, however, it may mean that the only citizens who bother to use the public wi-fi are those who can't afford the "premium" product (thus lessening the impact of competition). As you say, problems remain (although I'd like to think political controls would keep the worst of them in check).<BR/><BR/>I'd like to say we wouldn't find a censored free service acceptable just because an uncensored "premium" service exists, but that's pretty much what the television market is like.<BR/><BR/>Somewhat related to your point about painfully slow municipal wi-fi, Cardozo Law Professor (and ICANN board member) Susan Crawford has a working paper titled <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007221" REL="nofollow">The Radio and the Internet</A>. The paper addresses spectrum policy reform, and suggests that the FCC focus "on enabling unlicensed uses of the airwaves that can assist the nation with online access."Kurt Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10522590544227407684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-7904380330950975832007-11-04T09:41:00.000-05:002007-11-04T09:41:00.000-05:00The opportunity Mr. Hunt references is obviously e...The opportunity Mr. Hunt references is obviously enlarged when the marketplace shifts in response to free service and eliminates for-pay service providers. <BR/><BR/>However, I was under impression that in other counties/states where area wide wi-fi has been made available, that the speed was exasperatingly slow. This allowed other providers to stay in the market by offering a "premium" product. <BR/><BR/>This certainly doesn't eliminate the problems posed by the author. But, it does afford some level of competitive pressure on the county to provide service with comparable controls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-63097365326750402262007-11-02T11:57:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:57:00.000-04:00The "excuse to control the content provided" theor...The "excuse to control the content provided" theory pops up in other areas of communications law.<BR/><BR/>Prof. Thomas Hazlett argues that the early regulation of broadcast spectrum--seemingly justified by the scarcity of bandwidth and the potential for interference--was actually a way for Congress to serve certain special interests. "Interference was not the problem," he wrote, "interference was the opportunity."<BR/><BR/>This theory becomes more credible when you look at statements of politicians of the time. Senator Dill, for example, stated that the government "must always retain complete and absolute control of the right to use the air."<BR/><BR/>The analogy to wi-fi is pretty clear. The problem being addressed seems to be lack of universal wi-fi service, but as Hazlett might say, maybe the lack of universal service is the opportunity rather than the problem.Kurt Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10522590544227407684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-75017131210926057822007-11-02T11:32:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:32:00.000-04:00The author makes some interesting points. Most no...The author makes some interesting points. Most notable of which concerns the potential for the government to use the mere fact that they provide this "benefit" as an excuse to control the content provided. Where do we draw the line. One may argue that it makes sense for the government to prevent children from accessing pornography, but how is this accomplished? By preventing everyone from accessing it? A filtered "free" version of the internet would essentially cut off access to certian forms and types of communication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com