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

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: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.