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.

7 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. State monopoly. Good only at first. by MPAB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. by TX_Sparky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. And our current health care system, where 50% of all personal bankruptcies are directly traceable to health care costs, half of the kids in the country have no health insurance, and more retired people all the time face the unenviable choice of buying either food or their meds, works really great. No system designed and implemented by humans is perfect. But have you ever seen the health care systems in the EU up close? Have you ever had occasional to receive health care over there? I have, and those systems make ours look exactly like what it is, a soul-less meat grinder designed to make health "care" corporations a huge amount of profit on the backs of people who pay more for health care than any other industrialized country *on the planet*, but whose *quality* of care is ranked #37 by the WHO. But no matter. The unregulated so-called "free market" will take care of everything, right? Just look at what great shape our economy is in...

    2. Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. by TX_Sparky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RE the "free market", that's exactly why I proceeded the phrase by "so-called". Just like "clean coal" and "jumbo shrimp", it flat doesn't exist. And as far an people going bankrupt because they can't afford to stay alive any other way, I for one see absolutely NOTHING "nice to know" surrounding that sad state of affairs. In 2008, in the wealthiest country on the planet, when people get vetted at an intake station at a hospital as to whether or not they have any health insurance, which literally determines what level of care they get, I call that a meat grinder.

  2. Invalid arguments (imho) by theaveng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>>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.
  3. My, what a shocking development! by D_Blackthorne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:My, what a shocking development! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > 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

  4. The real fix for the filtering problem... by Rahga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.