Slashdot Mirror
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.
that the FCC is corrupt. Colin Powell's son was the head of it for a while, only because of his Dad's connections.
Free nationwide internet access would be just like what happens with free nationwide health service.
At first it works fine and takes only a tiny bit of our taxes, then it grows in size (and squares in budget) as more and more people leave their paid service for the free one: after all, they're paying for it as well.
Then comes the time when almost the whole service is in the hands of the state. It takes up a huge budget and a proportionate bite of our taxes. It works so that nobody is left unconnected, but not much more. The state mandates what can it be used for and what not. It sets up any filter it likes (of course, filters will only grow). Privacy is nixed.
But, hey, almost everybody is hooked up to STATENET because nobody can compete with it. Only those that can afford paying double get a quality (and expensive) internet service.
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.
>>>Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.
The DTV transition is almost complete. It will be a done deal on February 18 with a few minor issues to work-out during March, and then the FCC will be free to regulate the free internet service in channels 52-69 (the sold off spectrum).
>>>The internet access would have had some level of filtering, to which privacy groups took exception
So what? Free broadcast television has filtering as well, to bring it down to "PG" level, so I don't see what the issue is here. If you want raunchy stuff, you upgrade to pay TV or pay internet that is not censored.
>>>Bush administration objected to forcing requirements on the winners of the spectrum auction
I don't know why. We already force requirements onto other lessees of the PUBLIC spectrum, such as forcing tv stations to air educational programs, or cellphone operators to provide 911 tracing. The Corporations don't own the airwaves; they are merely leasing them from the People of the United States. If the collective "landlords" want to impose certain requirements for use of their property, so be it.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
...not! I'm not in the least bit surprised, considering that every time someone tries to spearhead any type of free broadband internet access for the American public, it gets shouted down by corporate types from all four corners of the country. After all, we can't have Big Telecom's strangle-hold monopoly on broadband broken by even our puny government, now can we? 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? If you think things are strange now, just wait: I see very stormy times ahead; the War for the Internet is just beginning.
It's good to hear this plan is dead. Kevin Martin backed this network so he'd look like a "family-values man" and score some points with cultural conservatives in North Carolina, where Martin has long been planning a bid for Congress.
This 25mhz of spectrum in the AWS3 band could go toward a lot of very cool services--LTE, for instance. Martin's plan--to earmark the 25mhz for 768kbps of censored wireless broadband that wouldn't even be widely deployed for a decade--is clearly not the smartest way to put these frequencies to use.
The FCC should do one of two things with this spectrum--a)auction it off with no strings attached and allow the winning firm to sell or rent the spectrum as if it were property, or b)set the band free as unlicensed flexible use spectrum subject only to basic EIRP and non-interference requirements and nothing more.
'Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.'
Why is this a 'major project'? And just what the heck has digital TV got to do with free wifi?
Also, from one of the links.
'Cell phone companies, in particular Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile, oppose the proposal, saying it will create interference, among other concerns. T-Mobile paid about $4.2 billion for an adjacent piece of spectrum.
The FCC has said its engineers examined the issue and found no technical interference issues.'
I suggest that the 'interference' that T-Mobile and others are worried about is the interference that this would create in them charging shitloads of money for internet access via their existing mobile networks.
Shame - apart from perhaps boosting the USA's dismal record in internet access, just image what widely available free Internet access could do. Think what GPS did...
I'm sure that ways could be found to ensure that network builders and operators could still get a decent ROI. Business users, for example, would still be prepared to pay extra for guaranteed voice/data coverage and added-value services.
The real fix for the filtering problem is not to filter, but to license access to the internet. To be completely honest, just about everything done on any public utility has rules and regulations and forces people to obtain licenses to use them. Want to drive on the road? Get a license. Want to be an electrician? Get a license. Want to check out library books? Get a license. If you abuse the public's trust, you get your license revoked. Unlike, say, blocking IPs of the RBN, content filtering will never work, socially or technically, so waste our time trying.
Having a government mandated filter would set a dangerous precedent. Free is fine, but caveats aren't free. Or do they mean free as in repressed?
'Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.'
Future FCC employees will be tested to see if they can pat the top of their head whilst rubbing their tummy. If they fail the test, they get the job.
Don't read too much into this. The whole auction was set up to benefit ONE COMPANY.
The FCCs requirements for the use of the spectrum matched this company's business plan and nobody elses. So the cancellation of the auction isn't the bad thing you're making it out to be. It's a good thing, because all it would have done would have been to create another monopoly. Free web access? Nothing paid for with taxes is free. Get over it. I'd rather everyone pay for their own internet and keep my taxes low. I pay way too much as it is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895503515596485.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
... lets define exactly what "Internet service" is. Most people seem to think its the capability to access remote services of your choosing at your convenience. It turns out that, absent some sort of 'Net neutrality' regulations (or even a definition), this is only a temporary condition, thanks to the benevolence of the monopoly telecoms. At any time, they reserve the right to filter or impose pricing structures so as to direct customers to their preferred partners.
I fear that the 'free service' will suffer from the same lack of understanding. Only PG content, services that have been blessed as 'approved' by the RIAA and MPAA and content deemed not to be politically incorrect will make it through the filters. The approval process to be placed on some white list (or get removed from a black list) will be every bit as onerous as having to pay kickbacks to be carried on the for-profit telecoms systems.
IMO, the Internet is a series of networks, routing nodes and name services needed to create connections between two points or broadcast packets from one to many. Anything more restrictive than this should not legally be advertised as 'Internet Service'.
Have gnu, will travel.