You have a “fundamental right” to wireless service

So sayeth SF Mayor Gavin "I’ll allow whatever marriages I want, when I want" Newsom:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests, along with state and U.S. regulators, whom he said were looking to derail a campaign by cities to offer free or low-cost municipal Wi-Fi services.

Wi-Fi is a short-range wireless technology that is now built into most laptop computers and is increasingly offered on handheld computers and certain mobile phones. Local officials are mulling plans to blanket every nook and cranny of this hilly city of 750,000 residents with Wi-Fi access.

"This is inevitable — Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco’s City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

[…]

Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

This guy just loves to make up ‘rights’ doesn’t he? Kinda reminds me of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and his assertions about the Constitution’s "privacy clause".

20 Responses to "You have a “fundamental right” to wireless service"

PCD says:

October 5, 2005 at 11:10 am

Newsom is just another out of control spender of things not his. It doesn’t decrease his wealth, power, or possessions.
David Foster says:

October 5, 2005 at 12:31 pm

I’m concerned about the process of choosing a contractor. To what extent will the political beliefs of the officers of company “X” influence the decision on contractor?

And doesn’t this create a de-facto monopoly with both government and private components?
Baklava says:

October 5, 2005 at 12:41 pm

As a person working on computers for the last 17 years and owning my own computer consulting business…. My questions are:

Do I have to start working for free to provide people their right to free computing and access to information via wireless technology?

Especially since, I don’t even have wireless technology in my own house yet?

How will I be able to feed my kids?

Or will it be the state paying for my services to provide these services. How much will they pay? If they have a team of 100 computer people going around hooking things up for a year, does San Francisco have a minimum of 10 million dollars to spend on that labor (not mentioning the cost of giving laptops to all of the poor, and not mentioning the administrative cost of administering such a program?

Let’s just say that’ll cost approximately $100 million and San Francisco spends more than that currently on the homeless. They spent over 150 million over 5 years ago on the homeless.

And my final question is for you liberals:
I can understand people arguing for food, sheltor, clean air, clean water, safety, and basic health care provisions as a right (even though my definition of shelter is different than a liberal’s), but how can anyone argue for free computing services?

Can any of you liberals explain this serious redistribution of wealth non-priority?
David Foster says:

October 5, 2005 at 1:14 pm

As I understand it, Google has offered to provide services for “free.” Probably planning to make up the $ in avertising revenues. Even if it is zero cost to taxpayers, that doesn’t relieve my concerns about monopoly and political bias in vendor selection.
PCD says:

October 5, 2005 at 1:32 pm

If Google wants to do it, fine, let them, but they’ll be forced to do it for the whole country. After that, watch some Liberal/Progressive dominated government entity confiscate the system from them if the content doesn’t pander to Liberal/Progressives.
Walter E. Wallis says:

October 5, 2005 at 1:52 pm

Hey Gavin baby! I drove through Frisco yesterday on business. What about my God given right to a parking space and to make a left turn to get to my destination instead of having to drive a mile of right turns? And how about a Union Square that doesn’t smell like an outhouse?
Baklava says:

October 5, 2005 at 2:24 pm

David Foster,

Does that mean Google will be providing the “free” laptops? I’ll dress like a bum and go get me one because I don’t have a laptop myself. 💡
Steve Skubinna says:

October 5, 2005 at 2:53 pm

I hope this doesn’t derail San Francisco’s plan to provide every citizen a free firearm to support Second Amendment rights.
Kevin says:

October 5, 2005 at 3:05 pm

Welp, it’s official. I’m becoming a Democrat and demanding free air conditioning. Air conditioning is a fundamental right of all Americans.

Also ice cream. Ice cream is a right, not a privilege.

Wow, being a Democrat is going to be fun! Ok, cya, I’ve got to go protest something.
Baklava says:

October 5, 2005 at 3:56 pm

That was a great laugh! Thanks Kevin!
mlgsac says:

October 5, 2005 at 7:49 pm

I think baklava should be a right. I love that stuff.
Steroid says:

October 5, 2005 at 9:27 pm

So. . . for the past 4 billion years, our rights have been violated? Thank goodness this guy came along to reverse the trend.
Seth says:

October 5, 2005 at 10:13 pm

Thank you, Walter E. Wallis! Yep! The fact that this town is run only by liberals(a conservative Democrat here, as I’ve said before, would be viewed as a redneck) is directly responsible for the filthy, smelly streets and for the “right” of homeless people to use doorways and sidewalks as bathrooms.

I actually voted for Newsom ops: because he was the lesser of all evils(there were, as usual, only liberals on the ballot) and the most businesslike(he’d even pushed through a proposition to stop giving the homeless free party money every month and instead putting the money into programs to help them– Proposition N– but that was overturned by the 9th Circus or some other socialist institution as “unconstitutional” or something), and we see what kind of Mayor he’s turned out to be. And believe me, he WAS the best choice, so you can have some idea of what the rest of the field looked like.
shortz says:

October 6, 2005 at 12:17 pm

Careful. He didn’t say “basic right.” You should’t put that in quotes when he’s not quoted as saying that.

“And doesn’t this create a de-facto monopoly with both government and private components? ”

If done right, it could be a ‘monopoly with government and private components’ like fed-ex and UPS are when they use government build roads.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 6, 2005 at 12:27 pm

“Careful. He didn’t say “basic right.” You should’t put that in quotes when he’s not quoted as saying that.”

He said “fundamental right” . The headline states that he saw WiFi as a basic right. If you read on, that’s exactly what he was talking about.

What’s the difference between “fundamental” and “basic”? Nothing.

Now, your opinion on that “right” would be …?
shortz says:

October 6, 2005 at 12:38 pm

“What’s the difference between “fundamental” and “basic”? Nothing.”

I’m sorry. When you put it into quotes it looks like you mean that’s what he said. Its innacurate. He said “fundamental.”

There may not be a difference to you, but that doesn’t mean you get to make up quotes. You can paraphrase — as the article does when it mentions “basic.” But that is different than making up quotes.

“Making up quotes?” That’s a slam against my integrity. You were ok with the first sentence, but not the second one. –ST

My opinion is that this is a politician arguing for his plan. I don’t think our constitution offers that many positive rights. We’ve probably signed treaties that say that, but I’m sure people are ready to argue that the US signing a treaty is meaningless.

I am, however, of the opinion that we should be looking for ways to connect people to the internet, like we connect them to roads.
Kevin says:

October 6, 2005 at 5:12 pm

I am, however, of the opinion that we should be looking for ways to connect people to the internet, like we connect them to roads.

Boy, not me Shortz. Governments are notoriously abominable at running businesses. They have no concept of efficiency, are exceedingly wasteful, and have ineffective customer service. Head down to the DMV or the social security office if you doubt this.

If done right, it could be a â€˜monopoly with government and private components’ like fed-ex and UPS are when they use government build roads.

1. It involves the government, so it would not be ‘done right’.
2. The monopoly you describe would only be a monopoly if the government built roads specifically for FedEX and UPS, and no one else was allowed to use them. In the wireless case, the whole system would have to be given to a single company to be effective (a true and dangerous monopoly), or split up and given to many companies, which invites poor communication between them, lowering the quality of the service.

Government needs to provide internal and external protection of citizens (cops, prisons, and military), maintain roads, and provide education. Anything else they do, they do horribly.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 6, 2005 at 6:27 pm

Hey ya’ll, if I moved to SF, you think I could lobby Mayor Newsom into supporting my “fundamental right” to a manicure?
Brian says:

October 7, 2005 at 1:21 am

Most Americans have access to free television and radio over the public airwaves. I don’t see how free internet service would be any different.
shortz says:

October 7, 2005 at 11:25 am

“Governments are notoriously abominable at running businesses. They have no concept of efficiency, are exceedingly wasteful, and have ineffective customer service”

Why do they need to run the business end? The government was good at achieving universal — specially rural — electrification. No reason why it can’t reach universal connectivity.

” In the wireless case, the whole system would have to be given to a single company to be effective (a true and dangerous monopoly), or split up and given to many companies, which invites poor communication between them, lowering the quality of the service.”

I don’t see why it has to be done poorly. Let them bid on bandwidth and useability on a govt provided infrastructure. Just like we do with roads.

We should make sure that we don’t have cronies, and that we don’t elect people of the party that believe government is ineffective. That way it’ll turn out to be ineffective.

Comments are closed.