Slashdot Mirror
Senators Aim to Wirelessly Jumpstart Broadband
JimW writes "Article at Practically Networked...A couple of senators actually have a clue about how broadband might be effectively promoted. Not that I have anything against my tax dollars propping up failing telco's by pushing DSL on areas where it isn't financially viable. Methinks the dark fiber will stay dark." Their plan calls for 255 MHz of spectrum to be allocated for wireless broadband - to compare, the band occupied by 802.11b is 83Mhz wide, with each channel being 22MHz (they overlap).
I'm not seeing evidence of tax dollars being used to build the infrastructure; just making it possible for someone (private corp., maybe) to do so.
why not let the private sector handle this
Because they're not doing much about it as it is. Not that I disagree with you in questioning why get the govt. needs to be involved, but the telco's/ISP's/what-ever do need a kick in the ass, it seems. If some of the tax I pay helps me get off my 56k, and gives the telco's a wake-up call, then sure, I'll blow the extra little bit per paycheck.
But that's just me, of course...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
This article reminded me of a previous slashdot artice that pointed to this Business Week article
"Sure, Wi-Fi has huge potential. But the spectrum could quickly become overcrowded and unreliable if it grows too quickly. Success will take two things: technological improvements and a helping hand from Washington. The Federal Communications Commission will either have to allocate more spectrum for wireless use or overhaul the way spectrum is divvied up -- an unlikely scenario given that the commission is overwhelmed by scandals in the telecom biz."
They seem to think that an expended frequency range would have huge economic impacts too.
Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
Building the infrastucture but leaving the development to private corps is good in many ways. Tax dollars might indicate a government-run network. A government-run network could easily become a government-controlled network. We wouldn't want the government watching our every move onli... er wait. Well, we wouldn't want it to be worse than it already is, in any case.
Of course, you'll probably end up facing corp greed Vs gov't invasion of privacy (and greed). Sometimes corps are the lesser of two evils though.
Make sure the bandwidth is applied to the indended use and enforce reasonable timetables for implementation. No third, fourth, or fifth chances to comply before the bandwidth is realocated to service providers who do have the ambition and resources to make it happen... Recall: Digital TV Bandwidth boondogle.
ME
I think that wireless will ultimately be the answer to the broadband problem. Most of the cost in bringing any service into the home, be it cable, internet, or telephone, is the cost of running a wire out there. If we could do all of the same stuff wirelessly, then it could be a lot cheaper.
I think that we are still quite a way off from that, but this is a good step in the right direction.
I'll be forced to vote against Barbara Boxer for more real reasons than "broadband." You know, her votes on things that jail people, say like DMCA etc...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Unlicensed (a commons) but technically regulated (so we don't have bozos with 100 Watt access points) open spectrum is just what we need to help get around the layers of control that are slowly enveloping the internet. It wouldn't hurt to try to do an end run around the IP4 address limit at the same time, and try to get IP6 compatible devices.
--Mike--
Wow. tps12 thinks that Finland and Europe have lower taxes?
The fact is that government has played a huge role in technology creation, and you're using a lot of that technology right now: the Internet, of course. As you say, it takes time, energy, and a bunch of smart people, and money, but in many cases it's been government programs that provide all that. Government-designed TCP/IP beat all the proprietary network approaches (SNA, DecNet, Novell, etc) because it was technically better, and it got better because of a lot of visionary bureaucrats at DARPA.
But, of course, the zealots who believe that government is inherently bad, stupid, and inefficient will ignore evidence to the contrary.
This is a nice idea, not that it will affect me in any way whatsoever - unless I get my green card... ...however a few questions do spring to mind, the most important one being about security and bandwidth caps (and tin foil hats, but that's another issue alltogether).
Let's say I pay $x / month for this service - what's to stop Jo Schmoe next door using my "frequency" for nothing. Experience with 802.11b, or whatever, is slowly teaching us that wireless is not as secure as fibre / cable.
And how much infrastructure will this take to implement? And at what cost? If it's not economically sound to lay cable will it make sense to put up enough satellites / balloons / repeater towers to cover the whole of the US - I mean there isn't even have full cell phone coverage yet!
The FCC did something similar in 1997 to see "whether this is pie in the sky or part of the 21st-century reality."
I haven't read yet about any conclusions drawn from that experiment though.
From the sound of this article, the FCC chair back then was hesitant to give something away for free that would raise billions for him in sales, but did so to see if it would have a positive impact on the eceonomy. If their weren't great results (documentable), these senators have their work cut out for them.
We did the same thing, but we did it early and saturated the whole city with 2.4 on all 3 non overlaping channels (Aironet aggregate 33mb/sec). By the time the competitors caught up they couldnt shoot a 100ft because of the interfearence. Needless to say were the only ones left in town doing wireless broadband. And weve allready done the same with 5.5ghz and 802.11a.
I will bend your mind with my spoon
Your local DSL company knows they can charge $49.95 forever for DSL. They know that they don't have to invest in upgrading infrastructures that could threaten their phone revenue. They know they can stall competitive DSL providers by overcharging and underserving them. It's just too easy for a baby bell to sit on the status quo.
On the other hand, some communities around the world have bypassed the phone companies and installed fibre and/or high speed metropolitan networks. Those areas have cheap, fast, always-on Internet service.
The proper way to stimulate Broadband adoption is to take ownership of the telecommunications infrastructure away from the Baby Bells and give it to each city. Then, each city can invest in the infrastructure that makes the most sense for them (microwave perhaps for remote counties; fibre for urban centers). Competing Internet Service providers (and baby bells too) will have fair, equal access to each house and building in the city. Your local city will invest in upgrading its infrastructure to provide a competitive advantage to encourage people to move in and provide tax revenue. Taxes which currently are used to force the baby bells to provide universal telephone service can be repurposed to aid development in poor counties.
Have I overlooked anything?
My DMV rules! I had to get a replacement driver's license due to a change of address. I went in on my LUNCH BREAK, walked up to the counter, the woman took my old ID, I told her my new address, and 5 minutes and $5 later, I had a new ID! Arkansas is backwater in terms of bandwidth, but for some reason, our DMV works!
I work for a wireless cable tv and highspeed internet company, we've been doing "wireless" for *years*. This of course depends on your definition of "wireless"...
Our system uses microwaves, broadcast from towers to antennas placed on the roof of the customer's house. Once at the antenna, the signal is carried inside via a regular RG6 coaxial cable to the modem and/or receiver for the tv. The speeds are comparable to those of the wired ISP (there is one DSL provider and one cable highspeed provider in the area); we are 1000/128 kbits/s. Only thing is, we limit your usage per month (not my call!)..
Its an interesting solution, as the bulk of our users are in rural areas that normally could not get broadband. A very good "last mile" solution in my mind..