CSC 379 SUM2008:Week 4, Group 3

Many municipalities are beginning to provide free (taxpayer- or advertising-funded) citywide wireless Internet access. Many municipalities are also considering filtering the connections, usually to stop pornography. However, allowing the government to control information flow is fraught with danger to free speech, especially in the absence of any laws limiting the government's authority. Examine the ethical considerations posed by filtering of municipal WAN connections.

• http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/006299.html
• http://people.w3.org/~djweitzner/blog/?p=90

Dangers of Internet Filtering

• Who decides what is appropriate and what isn't?
  • The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, how can the government justify blocking certain webpages?
• What criteria are used to decide whether a website is obscene?
  • Example: Denver airports block "racy" content
• Who is and isn't allowed to access certain material on public networks?
  • Example: Oregon County Libraries propose age-based internet filters
• Are there sufficient laws to protect user's rights?
  • Most legislators are blissfully unaware of even the most basic computer/internet functions, who could possibly expect them to understand the complex legal issues involved with internet free speech?

Policy Issues

<THIS SECTION WILL BE CHANGED SHORTLY...>

There is a policy question about whether—and under what conditions—government entities should get involved in the creation of MWNs. Internet service providers have started mounting legal challenges. For example, in the state of Pennsylvania, telecommunication providers successfully lobbied for the establishment of a law that forbids municipalities in most of the state from creating a MWN. However, after considerable debate, the city government of Philadelphia was able to receive an exemption from this law. So far, telecoms (such as the Baby Bells) and ISPs have successfully lobbied 14 states in the U.S. to pass laws prohibiting municipalities from building wireless networks because they are considered unfair competition [3]. The threat to entrenched interests goes beyond telecoms and ISPs because wireless Internet is seen as a disruptive technology that can displace traditional wired telephony, cellular service, and broadcast entertainment by delivering equivalent services at a lower cost to the consumer [8]. The telecoms and ISPs may have a point because municipalities in general have an advantage over them as they have ready and free access to public assets that can be used to mount network infrastructure equipment.

A major policy challenge for a municipality is that MWNs come with an assortment of legal implications, involving matters such as who bears the responsibility for data security, related liabilities, operational performance, and customer service management. Finally, since MWNs operate over the public radio spectrum, they may face governmental regulatory constraints and licensing requirements.

There remain fundamental unresolved policy questions such as:

1. Are MWNs an example of the government competing with private business?

2. Does free access to public facilities provide municipalities with an unfair advantage in competing with ISPs?

3. Should public funds be used to support MWNs when the stakeholders are often entities such as state or city governments and other community groups that do not have experience in providing Internet service?

4. Is there a need for new uniform legislation to handle the often-competing goals among MWN stakeholders? Clearly, implementers should first seek to understand and assess the legislative landscape in their community before embarking on the creation of a MWN.

Links and Resources

• Censorship with your Free Wifi? Computer World
• Should Libraries Censor Internet Access? CSMonitor.com
• How many states censor? Librarylaw.com
• Ruling in library Internet filter case was correct USAToday.com
• Oregon Libraries propose age-based filters Accessmylibrary.com