We tried to decipher that bill as well. Couldn't see the part about wireless either. Don't even know a crackhead that could decipher it with the strikeouts. Here's the bullet: Wireless, good. Confusing jigsaw puzzle legislation, bad.

... yet another example from this session of the demise of Local Control as a governing philosophy.

It's less a matter of local vs. state control than of favoring special interests: free municipal wireless would eliminate a profitable retail market for the telecom industry, the bigwigs of which contribute heavily to legislators' campaigns. Can't have that (although I wonder if municipalities could get around the restriction by charging, say, $1/month for wireless access)!

Another example: the GOP-controlled Lege is largely OK with "local control" of public education if it means things like repealing class-size limitations (which reduce the need for funding), but if it means less high-stakes testing (a GOP sacred cow) suddenly "local control" must take a back seat to "accountability."

Municipalities be damned! I personally plan to offer Wi-Max to my neighborhood at a nominal fee :)

Another example: the GOP-controlled Lege is largely OK with "local control" of public education if it means things like repealing class-size limitations (which reduce the need for funding), but if it means less high-stakes testing (a GOP sacred cow) suddenly "local control" must take a back seat to "accountability."

You've just illustrated why the notion that "local control" is THE governing principle of conservatism or Republicans is a misnomer at best.

Rick Casey tried to pull that fast one in a column recently, but it didn't fly any better for him. I can understand why some folks might like the argument, but it's not much more than creating a straw man so that you can knock it down in front of a select audience (to adulation and cheers, of course).

As one example that there is no monolithic view of "local control" within disparate strains of conservatism, take Lincoln's conservatism vs. that of Southern conservatives who adopted the ideas of John C. Calhoun on local control. You won't see a more furious fight than getting a Lincolnian conservative in the same room with a Calhounite conservative, and asking them to chat about principles of local control and natural right.

I can understand why Rick Casey might want to write a column aimed at a certain audience and use that misnomer about local control, just as I understand lefty bloggers picking it up and shooting it around to each other at a time in this state, frankly, when there's not much in their own ranks to be cheery about. Ultimately, though, it's just not the overarching principle it's made out to be. Sorry folks.

Perhaps what the Texas Legislature is reacting to is the plan by the city of Philadelphia to provide wireless internet service on a citywide basis.

More information is here:

http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/3442851

Of course, if the New York State Legislature (aka the Albany Clowns) were to debate this issue, it would be stuck in committee for the next 20 years.

I tried to comment but think I canceled it? Anyway--

Strikeouts are language in current law proposed for deletion. Underline is new language proposed to be added to the law.

Hope --

Thank you for reminding us of that. The conventions used in Texas lege bills are sometimes a bit confusing, since they don't tend to explicitly say "strike this, add this" like Congressional bills do.

In this case, the principle of local control is fighting with a contrasting principle of the free market and limited government.

Free-market conservatives usually agree that there are some services, like roads and streetlights, that offer greater benefits as public services than as fee-for-service.

The people who would fall for a telco giveaway may not have thought about municipal wireless as a service like street lights, which offers benefits in public safety and economic development.

It's probably more effective to respect people's stated principles than to call them hypocrites and hope they change their minds.

There are muni wireless initiatives in Austin, Houston, Corpus Christi, and many other areas around the state. The way to defeat this provision is to have legislators hear from their constituents that this is the telcos acting as a "special interest", against the interests of cities and towns all around the state.