The FCC wants to auction off unused "white space," but mandate some of that space for free wideband internet.
Of course, the mention of "free internet" brings broadband and cell phone companies into full red alert, photon torpedoes locked and loaded. "Free" is an ugly, naughty word, and means no business for either industry even if a feasible business model could be devised. Many question if investors would actually be willing to set up the infrastructure during a time of financial woes. Other free speech advocates are worried that pornography and other naughty goodness will be blocked due to the open-public access restrictions. T-Mobile is even worried that the proposal will interfere with spectrum it just shelled out $4.2 billion for.
"Everybody likes the concept — free broadband, free access to the Internet — but in practice, the way the model is set up, it may present problems," Ben Scott, policy director of advocacy group Free Press told Reuters.
But FCC Chairman and Republican Kevin Martin is determined to bring his proposal to the commission’s meeting on December 18, wanting the FCC to auction public airwaves and mandate the winning bidder to fork over some of that space for the nationwide, free broadband access. The idea is to offer midlevel DSL speeds for free after consumers purchase a wireless router, and to charge users a fee for upgrading to a faster service. M2Z Networks president John Mulata also offered the same proposal, and plans to bid for the public space if the FCC approves of the auction plan in a few weeks. His business model would use advertising to help fund the free internet service.
Yet despite the complaints from Free Speech advocates and the cell phone industry, Martin’s biggest hurdle will be to convince the commission’s two democrats to agree with his proposal. This may become impossible to achieve with Democratic President-elect Barack Obama taking office next month, giving the democrats more authority in the 5-member FCC group.
Ironically, analysts predict that the two other Republican members will more than likely turn down the proposal. The group has clashed numerous times in the past, but eventually came together to urge Obama to sink more funds into high-speed broadband in his stimulus package. Currently North America ranks low on the totem pole when compared to other industrialized nations offering affordable and easily accessed high-speed Internet.
Last month the FCC approved unanimously with a 5 to 0 vote in opening up the unlicensed frequencies known as "white spaces." Protesters immediately kicked in, claiming that commercial use of the spectrum would interfere with television signals and wireless microphones. But the FCC dismissed the pleas, claiming that the group was satisfied with the testing previously conducted.
The big question is not how consumers will actually access the free internet, but how it will impact companies such as Verizon, Time Warner and even AT&T. It’s highly likely that more companies will come out and protest before the FCC meeting on December 18. But if the FCC actually passes the proposal, retail markets will be able to reach a whole new world of consumers who would not otherwise have been able to afford Internet access.
- Retailers Use Social Networking to Catch Thieves
- Could Consoles Replace Set-top Boxes?
- Fujitsu '4 Life' Laptop Replacements
- Netbooks Fly Off Shelves on Cyber Monday
- iPhone Hacked to Run Linux
- Intel: Netbooks Only "Fine for an Hour"
- Using Phone While Driving Makes You Old and Drunk
- Black Friday Sales Booming Despite Recession
- Pretend to Know Future; Make Money
- PlayStation 3 Gets Flashy, Amongst Other New Things
- Sling Takes on Hulu, Joost, YouTube
- Midway Games Sold Cheap to Investor Mark Thomas
- Apple Removes Antivirus Support Note
- Firefox Plug-in Makes Piracy Easy
- Xbox 360 Beats PS3 on Black Friday
- T-Mobile Mysterious G1 Data Roaming Charges Exposed
- CBS Radio to Power Yahoo's Launchcast
- T-Mobile UK Cuts G1 Prices
- Nintendo DSi Sells Over 500K in Japan
Heya,
Internet service providers are the next super money power that ROB users of their money with LITTLE actual effort on their end for the service. They don't own the internet. They just let you pay them for a gateway access to it, which they RENT. Basically, it's like insurance. Pay a lot, up front, with the idea that you're getting a service. In the end, you're getting ripped off, and they make massive profits.
Free is an ugly word, because the truth of everyone being completely stolen from with how much they pay for internet access is MIND BLOWING.
Cheers,
It is indeed, I pay 50 a month for a max average dl speed of 822 kps, 20gigs per month max downloads and 10gigs max uploads.
I can't play most new free mmorpg's today because of the high bandwidth, i surpass this shit limit and wind up paying more.
You think the states are bad, canada's worse...
If by 822kps you mean 822 kilobytes per second(6.5 megabits/sec) I can not think of any game that needs more then that to play.
What game is that hard on bandwidth?
If by 822kps you mean 822 kilobytes per second(6.5 megabits/sec) I can not think of any game that needs more then that to play.What game is that hard on bandwidth?
any ipx game tunneled thru an ip package - doom2 etc.
Anyway, I'm guessing he's referring to kbits
It is indeed, I pay 50 a month for a max average dl speed of 822 kps, 20gigs per month max downloads and 10gigs max uploads.I can't play most new free mmorpg's today because of the high bandwidth, i surpass this shit limit and wind up paying more.You think the states are bad, canada's worse...
I live in Quebec, Canada and my broadband package is a little better than that. We have a 5mbps bandwidth (compared to 10 and more in the Montral area), 35gb of download/upload per month (unlimited between midnight and 8am) for 40$. It's more than anough to play any online game and I can live with downloading at around 625kb/s. I guess your ISP just suck. That's the problem of living in a region with no competition (this is also why we need AMD and Intel *wink* *wink*).
Free internet sounds great, but the idea of the government controlling it kind of scares me. Also, do we really need MORE government spending right now?
In the end, there's no such thing as "government spending"... all they can do is spend money they've taken from you or your children in extra taxes. That's beside the point, though.
"Free" Internet service would be something for people like my 70-something parents who feel that their 120 minutes of dialup a month for $10 is all they ever need for a very occasional web page and reading their non-rich-content email. I've tried to get them going with paid high-speed but they just won't buy into it. The free plan would be of use to those types so they can actually subscribe to MS Automatic Update for their XP workstation and updates to their anti-virus definition files.
Now as far as Comcast's upload/download limits - don't even get me started. Argh!
I'm wondering if maybe this article should be called "FCC Ponders Free Broadband." I can't imagine that "fondles" is appropriate?!?!
Honestly I have always thought the internet should be a free service anyways. It it such a great tool to obtain knowledge and that's just one of its many uses. If my free internet dream came true it would put every company out of business and be funded by taxes. The average Joe's job would be safe because the government could just rehire them to help maintain the service while the high ups who decide to give themselves a 20 million bonus would be out of the picture. Causing the tax to be less than what we currently pay today.
Of course this will never happen with out government with it is today basically they are all puppets of the corporations today.
I'd be surprised if the democrats didn't vote in favor of this. Helping provide services to low-income households is one of the common traits, and monopolistic big business is frowned upon. If the government were to mandate free wideband, they'd limit content access for sure--and they should, for the same reasons libraries would--but they'd take away the lower levels of service demand from the ISP's. So what should they do? Make faster service cheaper and get on the gigabit internet bandwagon. Japan has remote satellite service in rural areas that tops 2 gigabits for cheap, why are we stuck with satellite service at 400kb/s for $50? Why are we paying for only 8Mb/s for cable broadband for $60? Even Verizon is better, 50Mb/s unlimited bandwidth for $100, and it's still a rip off! They need to make it cheaper for the companies to offer faster speeds at lower prices than to allow the nationwide price-fixing that's going on now, just because upgrading their hardware from 10-20 yr. old gateways and switches to current fiber-optic networking equipment would dig too deep in their profit margins. Right now, Verizon FiOS is the best deal in America for price per Mb/s and options, but FiOS isn't available everywhere. It's the localized monopolies held by the big ISPs that does this.