FCC Moving to Block State Broadband Laws
I am not certain, but do assume that there will be a wireless component if the system is not entirely wireless. Hence, another layer of wireless radiation over our towns should this law not be overturned on appeal. And please understand, I do not oppose the right to compete with the Big Telecom companies, per se. Rather, I oppose every company deploying its own antennae infrastructure so that they may broadcasting freely. In this case even municipalities. [Barring the ideal solution of bringing all the towers down, could the corporations somehow share the existing antennae as they did the phonelines in the US after the break up of Ma Bell? Why does every provider need its own antennae? Colocation of antennae on existing towers is surely worse for those life-forms nearby. And does the volume go up with different providers entering the neighborhood--I refuse to call it a Market--so that the existing antennae could not accommodate it? I think the volume is only going up with the development of more and more wireless devices. So much for conserving energy, eh?
The gov, industry, and press all package this proliferation of providers, towers and devices to the public as their right to access, free markets, democracy,jobs, security, etc. "The [American] consumer has a right to choose," yah duh, yah duh. ClearWire has a right to deploy in my neighborhood. Afterall it was a part of THEIR business plan. And then we were obligated to let them carry that out....
But I have digressed. This article below is about municipalities building their own infrastructures. Good grief!
Debbie
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/
Federal officials are moving forward to preempt laws in two states that limit the ability of local officials to build broadband networks, a long-expected move that’s expected to spark a fight with state lawmakers.
Gee, in following the link I don't see how this move by the FCC is detrimental to our cause. THe way I read it more power will rest in the local community to determine their broadband future rather than the higher State level. I can't see where that is bad. Isn't that what we are fighting for to get the action at lowest possible level of government. Its so much easier to mobilize the citizenry at a lower level than a higher level.
ReplyDeleteGee, it seems like a good thing for our cause, not a bad thing. Don't we want the decision making to be at the lowest level? Isn't it easier to mobilize for change at the local level over a higher level of government. I thought that was one of the reasons we opposed the Telecom Act 1996, it took that right away from local jurisdictions and put it at the federal level. I don't think we should focus on how the technology has been deployed, i.e. colocations, too many antennas on one site, Rather the possibilities for changing that scenario through a more accessible level of governance.
ReplyDelete