That's a little better

I'm still not happy with Rep. Sylvester Turner, and I'm still not convinced that the telecom bill (also known as HB789) deserves to be passed despite the 145-1 vote in favor of it in the House, but he's at least taking a step in the right direction.

Turner said the bill opens up the market sooner than he would have liked, but he voted for it because of several consumer protections that were added during House debate.

Turner got eight amendments added to the bill and withdrew three others.

The bill includes an amendment, proposed by Turner, that freezes the rates for basic phone service for the next two years, something he said is important.

"For Grandma and Grandpa who are simply interested in having a basic service, and don't want the other smokes or whistles, their rates are going to remain the same," Turner said.
Turner said the bill opens up the market sooner than he would have liked, but he voted for it because of several consumer protections that were added during House debate.

Turner got eight amendments added to the bill and withdrew three others.

The bill includes an amendment, proposed by Turner, that freezes the rates for basic phone service for the next two years, something he said is important.

"For Grandma and Grandpa who are simply interested in having a basic service, and don't want the other smokes or whistles, their rates are going to remain the same," Turner said.

Other amendments added to benefit customers include allowing consumers to get three free directory-assistance calls a month and requiring municipalities to give consumers 30 days notice if they are raising fees.

Turner said he hopes the Senate, which will consider the bill after one more routine House vote, will further improve the legislation. He would like to see basic service defined as dial tone, call waiting and an additional feature.

What is the deal with all this "let's pass something and hope the Senate fixes the bugs" legislating? Has it always been this way or is this a new phenomenon? Scott has argued that the sheer number of bills filed every biennium is the best argument against a fulltime Lege. I'd say that the worse-than-usual sausagemaking that happens in the mad rush to pass something before the next deadline passes is the best argument for it.

The coverage is a bit confusing as to what exactly happened with municipal WiFi. Here's the Chron:

Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, originally offered an amendment that would have prevented municipalities from offering or expanding wireless networks. But after a long debate, the measure was changed to ban cities from charging for wireless services if they had not done so by Jan. 1, 2006.

Here's the Statesman:

Other key amendments that were passed include:

•A ban on cities operating Wi-Fi Internet networks except in public buildings and areas such as parks, or for limited purposes, such as bill-paying or emergency services.

And here's Save Muni Wireless:

Today, the Texas House approved an amended version of HB 789 that bans municipal wireless services. That's disappointing, of course, but the blow is somewhat softened by exceptions for existing and planned projects. The bill also calls for the State PUC (Public Utilities Commission) to conduct further study, and make recommendations for the next legislative session.

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.

That's probably the most accurate of the three, but as we see from further down in the Chron story, no one is 100% sure of what this all might mean.

Turner was among several Democratic representatives from Houston, including Garnet Coleman, Scott Hochberg and Melissa Noriega, who argued that underserved populations should have access to wireless technology as well.

Several Texas cities have built or are building wireless networks in libraries, parks and neighborhoods.

Under the amendment, Technology For All, a Houston nonprofit group that has joined the city of Houston and Rice University to provide free, high-speed wireless Internet service to East End residents, can continue doing so. Will Reed, who heads the group, says providing Internet access is perhaps the single biggest thing cities can do to close the gap between information-age haves and have-nots.

Reed said he was hopeful the amendment would not affect plans to expand the program to other neighborhoods.

"We are going to have to figure out what this means for municipalities that are doing this kind of work," Reed said. "Cities need to have local choices that help them provide services to all of their citizens."

That's the main reason I'm a bit mollified by Turner, and while we're here let's give kudos to Hochberg, Noriega, and Dutton. Scott would include Todd Baxter and Eddie Rodriguez as well. But let's face it, we're all rooting for the Senate to deep-six this sucker.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on March 25, 2005 to That's our Lege | TrackBack