Texas - HB 789: I can see how Rep. Phil King (R) can say that "No business should have to compete with public tax dollars". But on second thought that's a ludicrous statement. The SBA helps many small businesses with tax dollars. If this philosophy was applied universally, you would have to get rid of the SBA.

Nevertheless, cutting off Wi-Fi contracts at DFW (T-Mobile and Wayport), DAL (T-Mobile), AUS (T-Mobile and Wayport), IAD (Sprint), HOU (Airtran Airways), ELP (Airpath), would actually eliminate telecommunication options instead of improving choices. I don't understand what purpose such legislation would serve since Wi-Fi at Airports usually provides guaranteed revenue to the airport (plus a cut of the business). Most airports that use providers to deploy Wi-Fi have contracts that require other carriers to be able to share the network or roam onto it. Furhtermore, the equipment is installed at the service providers' costs.

On the other hand in small airports there may not be enough subscriber volume to ever interest large carriers. As a result of legislation like this one, small airports like San Antonio, Amarillo or Lubbock would never have Wi-Fi because the law would prohibit the city or airport authority from deploying its own.

-===-

Many other states are launching anti-muni law campaigns that may restict Wi-Fi: http://www.saschameinrath.com/node/133

-===-

I hope that the Federal Bill HR2726 dies in committee. It's equally badly thought out legislation. In most locales, GPRS and EV-DO provide substantially similar service as a Wi-Fi hotspot (at slower speeds and at greater costs but nevermind that). Thus this legislation actually would help to preserve the cellphone companies' oligopoly on wireless internet service.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2726:

Note that the bill also repeals 47 U.S.C. 541(f)

(f) Local or municipal authority as multichannel video programming distributor No provision of this chapter shall be construed to—
(1) prohibit a local or municipal authority that is also, or is affiliated with, a franchising authority from operating as a multichannel video programming distributor in the franchise area, notwithstanding the granting of one or more franchises by such franchising authority; or
(2) require such local or municipal authority to secure a franchise to operate as a multichannel video programming distributor.

This would in effect get cities out of any cable business under (b).

HTV

You seem to imply that the municipal part was irrelevant to the bill's failure, Glenn, but that's not really the case. It was increasingly clear to legislators that the municipal prohibition was controversial, and some seemed to be getting that message and rethinking. And the Senate never sought a muni prohibition.

That said, we expect to see similar legislation proposed next session, and there's word of a proposed Federal prohibition as well.