FCC Cancels Free Internet Vote

Earlier this year we discussed a proposal from the FCC which would have required winning bidders for a portion of the wireless spectrum to use some of that bandwidth for free internet access. A vote for the plan was scheduled for next Thursday, but now the FCC has canceled those plans, facing "opposition from several top officials, wireless providers, and even civil rights groups." The internet access would have had some level of filtering, to which privacy groups took exception, and the Bush administration objected to forcing requirements on the winners of the spectrum auction. Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.

Comments

The test of good leadership

[Anonymous Coward]

Is when lots of people are telling you that you can't or that you shouldn't, you decide to say "fuck y'all" and do what you and your people think is best.

Re:State monopoly. Good only at first.

[theaveng]

I agree 100% with your reasoning. But it's still flawed. Why? Because free internet occupying former channels 51 to 69 were to be paid by the *corporations* not the government. Just like free radio and free tv today.

Although given that internet is dirt cheap ($15 for DSL, and $7 for Dialup), I do question whether it's really necessary to make free service. Who cannot afford to pay either $15 or $7 for internet access?

Re:Invalid arguments (imho)

[theaveng]

You are correct! Look at this list of Christian ISPs. They have names like Integrity, Internet Safety, Safeplace.net. The only question is: Are they widely available, or am I still stuck with the Verizon/Comcast duopoly?

http://christianity.about.com/od/practicaltools/tp/christianisps.htm

Re:State monopoly. Good only at first.

[Swizec]

I pay my government $15 for 20/20 (reliable) FTTH. I think you're getting ripped off by those large corporations.

Re:My, what a shocking development!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Wasn't there a U.S. city that recently was sued by a telecom because they had the unmitigated gall to actually make plans to build their own fiber network for use by their residents, because that telecom didn't want to be bothered to build the infrastructure themselves?

There are many. Here's a few:

Utah's Utopia project vs. Qwest: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/99301 and http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/97502

Utah's iProvo deployment (which is weird because a company, Broadweave, bought the entire muni deployment): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94208

Powell, WY vs. Qwest and Bresnan Comm.: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94814

Monticello, MN vs. TDS Telecom: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/98320

Vermont vs. ...themselves: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94893

There's also the fibre ownership ordeal in Ottawa, but that's a little different (no lawsuits): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/96618

Re:What a load of old FUD

[theaveng]

When I look at this I see:

(0) A tiny country the size of Rhode Island, and not worthy of comparison to the USA, EU, Russia, or any other continent spanning federations.
(0) A city; cities shouldn't be listed.
(1) CANADA - 1.93
(2) UNITED STATES/ EUROPEAN UNION (virtual tie) - 1.38 and 1.31 respectively
(3) AUSTRALIA - 1.18
(4) CHINA - 0.27
(5) RUSSIA - 0.10

There. The USA is not doing bad at all once you compare it to other federations the same freakin' size as the 2500-mile-wide USA. That's playing fair. ----- P.S. I apologize if I offended anyone. That's not my intent. But I think comparing pumpkins (continental federations) to peas (city-states) is silly. We should compare like-to-like (pumpkins to pumpkins) which means one continent-sized federation versus other continent-sized federations.

Re:State monopoly. Good only at first.

[theaveng]

There are two paths a person may take on the way to death:

- spend hundreds of thousands trying to gain a few extra pointless months & bankrupt the family in the process
- accept death and pass away quietly

I choose the latter. As did Pope John Paul who set an excellent example (imho). By the way, there is a free market in the health system - it involves paying CASH for all your expenses, same as you do when you buy a car or buy a TV. The problem is that most people will happily laydown $30,000 for an SUV, but when they need a heart transplant, suddenly they think that's wrong. How very odd.

Why do people think $30,000 is too much to pay for a heart, but reasonable for a car and gladly lay down the money for a shiny piece of metal? Talk about messed-up priorities.

IMHO healthcare should be more like food stamps - you get help if you need help - if you don't need help, you don't get the stamps.

Re:State monopoly. Good only at first.

[Moridin42]

i.e. Paid by corporations.

While I've read a number of your posts, and I think they're generally decent (even if I don't always agree) I must point something out with this one.

Compelling a provider to provide "free" service is a tax. Its just a well hidden one. Taxes on corporations annoy me for the same reason politicians love them. They can levy them without fear of backlash from their constituencies. Hell, they get to profit off them from political lobbies and the like. The constituencies still pay them. They just don't get up in arms when the tax is hidden behind the price tag of the stuff they buy.

Re:Its important to remember

[2.7182]

I said it was weird, nothing more. If you look at his experience prior to running the FCC it is shocking that he got that job. He was a really junior lawyer, with no background in broadcasting or communications. Call it what you like. You can see his remarkably minimal qualifications here at wikipedia. I can't believe anyone could think he was a reasonable choice.

Michael, is that you ?

Re:State monopoly. Good only at first.

[plasmacutter]

Anything that can be done in a socialist system can be done in a free-enterprise one

let me know how those private police and fire companies do.

I sometimes lie awake at night thinking about how amazing it was that the free market gave rise to our interstate system, railroad system, military, and space programs.

I'm amazed at how columbus retained private funding to discover the new world.

Now let's go back to the real world, where government intervention has its place to preserve the public welfare by imposing a little stability and ensuring necessary services are available to more than simply the privileged few.