Wireless providers and component suppliers are trying to talk the FCC out of a nationwide public Super Wi-Fi network.
The idea of a Super Wi-Fi network that users can access for free across the nation isn't exactly a new proposal. After all, that's what the FCC wants to do with some of the unlicensed white space once used by analog TV signals. But the plan has now become a lot clearer as well as the opposition the government faces from the wireless industry.
According to a recent article by The Washington Post, a group of companies including AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Qualcomm sent a letter to the FCC saying that the government needs to focus its attention on selling those airwaves instead of using them for a free nationwide network. Many Republican lawmakers are saying the same thing, that the sale would raise billions for the U.S. Treasury.
In the letter, Intel told the FCC that those airwaves could be used to bolster high-speed cellular 4G networks. "We think that that spectrum would be most useful to the larger society and to broadband deployment if it were licensed," said Peter Pitsch, the executive director of communications for Intel. "As unlicensed, there would be a disincentive to invest in expensive networking equipment and provide users with optimal quality of service."
Cisco and other telecommunications equipment firms actually want the FCC to do more testing for potential interference. But supporters of the Super Wi-Fi plan are criticizing both the equipment and cellular firms, pointing out that they oppose the plan simply because they share lucrative relationships, and don't want anything do disrupt this money-making model.
But the hardware and cellular companies may be fearful for a good reason. The FCC's proposed network will be offered in nearly every metropolitan area and in many rural areas. Unlike a home or business network, the FCC's version would be nearly everywhere, penetrating walls, dodging trees and rolling over hills. Users could seemingly make VoIP calls from anywhere, driverless cars a mile apart could communicate with each other, and more. Consumers may no longer need a home network to simply surf the web.
"For a casual user of the Web, perhaps this could replace carrier service," said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at the Medley Global Advisors research firm. "Because it is more plentiful and there is no price tag, it could have a real appeal to some people."
One big hurdle the FCC must overcome is convincing local TV stations and other broadcasters to sell a chunk of their unused airwaves to the government. Currently it's not clear whether these companies are willing to sell their vacant airwaves.
To read the full report from the Washington Post, head here.
All those in favor of available public frequencies being sold by government to corporations? *tumbleweeds*
All those in favor of an always on wifi infrastructure across the entire nation? (you know, sort of like how we have roads for cars?)
That's what I thought.
All those in favor of available public frequencies being sold by government to corporations? *tumbleweeds*
All those in favor of an always on wifi infrastructure across the entire nation? (you know, sort of like how we have roads for cars?)
That's what I thought.
On the flip side, of course, this is certainly a very expansive project, adding much unwanted strain to an already failing and irresponsible budget.
I guess you are also anti-road, emergency services, and military? Or do you disagree that information inter-connectivity is essential for a nation during this time of emerging globalization, and that empowering citizens is not as good as empowering corporations?
While the upside of having "free" wireless access everywhere could create some amazing new companies and products, there is also the huge downside of who watches the watchmen? What kind of security and over-site would there be to prevent abuse of the massive amounts of personal data a network like this would create?
I see ups and downs on both sides, but liscensing makes more sense in the current state of affairs.
In general, an individual can pay for internet service. An individual cannot pay for a road. Taxes for civil infrastructure are one thing, but this is another debt increasing social program to increase reliance on government and certain political parties. Campaigns will be: Vote for me! Get free internet! Those other guys don't want you to have internet, they're bad!
these are some of my concerns as well, but like the public works prodject that brought us hoover damn and the highways we could add to taxes to fund it and it would i think be good fo have a public netwrok liek this so everybody can have some level of access to the internet much liek you can have cable tv or stalite tv but an antenna is still an option not as good service but still an option. i also feel this woudl actually improve service from private companies like at&t / verizon due to having to do somethign they hate doing... actually competing and with a free option it means they damn well better offer a signifigantly better product or lose customers
Thorium. If the government wants to spend research dollars here, that's great, assuming they don't just sell the breakthroughs in power production technology to China.
-CB
If this went through, the Government would be the sole distributor of the internet. If this went through, ATT, Verizon, and all the rest would struggle to stay in business and quite possibly could fail to pay for the bandwidth they already have.
I for one don't want to live in a country where the government controls my access to the internet.
I think if they do create it, add a 2.5 Mbps cap (or so) per device connected. Just enough for basic use. That way they aren't destroying the providers and they don't have a few people causing the network to crawl.
Hard to say - you can get basic TV for free OTA, but people still subscribe to cable. Unless government-provided internet is faster than what you can subscribe to (doubtful), AT&T, Verizon, etc very well might survive.