Slashdot Mirror


US Considers Some Free Wireless Broadband Service

gollum123 writes "US regulators may dedicate spectrum to free wireless Internet service for some Americans to increase affordable broadband service nationwide, the Federal Communications Commission said on Tuesday. The FCC provided few details about how it would carry out such a plan and who would qualify, but will make a recommendation under the National Broadband Plan set for release next week. The agency will determine details later. One way of making broadband more affordable is to 'consider use of spectrum for a free or a very low-cost wireless broadband service,' the FCC said in a statement." Nobody has more than a couple of paragraphs on this story. None of the press coverage mentions the obvious likelihood that any such free network would be heavily filtered, censored, and monitored.

24 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. heh by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First comes government cheese. Then comes government health care. Now comes government internet connections. Next comes government monitoring and censorship of said inter- *NO CARRIER*

    1. Re:heh by sopssa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well it's obvious the whole purpose of this is to ga*NO CARRIER*

    2. Re:heh by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not necessarily a bad thing if the scope is narrowed to emergency services or official business(state and local government agencies, in short) like filing tax paperwork, renewing vehicle registration or paying off tickets, and applying for and managing benefits(which would be facilitated by ubiquitous debit cards). It would eliminate a lot of paperwork and expensive face-time for the agencies involved as well as lower-class and/or rural citizens.

      But for regular browsing news and Facebook-type stuff? Yeah, bet on monitoring...though the data collected won't be representitive of all demographics because the middle-class and wealthy will still have the "full-featured" broadband from cable providers...which are kinda monitored anyway, but that's beside the point.

      Since the service must be allocated among a list of open frequencies, it's also possible that people subscribing to the service would need new gadgets to access the pipes. There's a lot of possibility for abuse if, say, the extra communication logic is subseqently required for "emergency" purposes in all gadgets.

    3. Re:heh by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...though the data collected won't be representative of all demographics because the middle-class and wealthy will still have the "full-featured" broadband from cable providers...

      At first. Eventually the only people that won't use it will be the security-conscious, the torrenter, and the government conspiracy theorist.

    4. Re:heh by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see nothing in the liked article that says the "free or low cost service" would be run by the government, just that they'd consider allowing companies, localities, and nonprofits to use these frequencies if that's what they do with it.

      As always, you put a lot of your trust in your ISP, so choose carefully.

    5. Re:heh by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Funny

      First comes government cheese.

      Yeah really. I'd much prefer government Twinkies.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:heh by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First comes government cheese. Then comes government health care. Now comes government internet connections. Next comes government monitoring and censorship of said inter- *NO CARRIER*

      If you hadn't noticed, Government has been monitoring communications since they set up ECHELON in the 60s.

      If you really want to talk about goverment cheese, let's discuss the billions in subsidies/tax cuts/etc that have been given to telecom companies.
      Anyone with two eyeballs can look at the market for certain services (including healthcare) and see that the market is broken.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:heh by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Though you know this is government we're talking about. That NO CARRIER will not be due to filtering and regulations, but simply to shoddy, half-baked and simply not working connections.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:heh by jketch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems more likely we'll end up with the majority of people purchasing faster service through a wired provider just like most people pay for cable/satelitte now. Besides, there's only a limited amount of spectrum available. That may be fine for some place out in rural Montana, but can you imagine trying to provide the entire Internet bandwidth of a place like New York City with wireless alone?

    9. Re:heh by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuck YOU and fuck the people that modded you up.

      I am so sick of people saying that. The government does tens of thousands of projects every year, within budget and of incredibly high quality.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Name one.

    11. Re:heh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They may be shoddy. They most certainly will be overloaded. I know someone whose municipality gives "free" broadband, and in the evenings, it's next to useless. They still subscribe to the, fortunately, still available private service in order to play games or surf at a decent rate.

      No "single payer" there, yet.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. Re:quit worrying by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not worried about it, i'm worried that there are too many stupid people willing to change their behavior when they should be changing their government.

  3. This isn't new by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't remember the name of the company but suffice it to say, there is a company who has been riding the back of the FCC for years, trying to get them to approve some kind of free wireless broadband plan just like is being described here.

    The old plan was to have the government collect some revenue from the company in exchange for offering exclusive use of the spectrum. The company was planning to filter the connection, specifically to block porn, because they had some significant ties to the moral morons in the "family" groups.

    I don't recall how they were planning to pay for the whole thing, but i seem to remember they had for-pay plans that might have subsidized the free (censored) plans.

    1. Re:This isn't new by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is the company http://www.m2znetworks.com/

      They originally wanted a 15 year exclusive spectrum license, and as you can see from their website, even now after their original plan was totally rejected, they're entirely committed to filtering things to make it "family friendly" if they get approval as a licensee.

  4. Community fiber by slashqwerty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have heard it would cost $1,500 per home to run fiber to every home in the nation. That's $225 billion. If you want better and more affordable communications install fiber co-ops throughout the nation that do nothing but the physical installation from the home to a neighborhood hub. From the hub, any ISP that chooses can compete for your business.

    1. Re:Community fiber by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or just start getting the municipalities to run a pipe from the homes to a central hub. Yes I mean a pipe as in a cylinder of metal, plastic, or concrete. It would only have to be the size of your sewer line to allow for a dozen different providers. Municipalities are already experienced in the low tech job os running pipes to people's homes, and around cities. I know that my home has three different pipes running into it now. A forth pipe wouldn't be a big deal.

      You can bet if all a startup had to do was pull a wire through a pipe to hook up new customers, we would see a lot more competition.

  5. Never leave the basement by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a big fan of free broadband WiFi provided by neighborhood associations, local business alliances, charities, etc, etc, etc - but not by an overgrown mafia organization with a monopoly on violent force!

    The geek out-of-doors is truly a babe in the woods.

    The neighborhood association can be far tougher and more relentless in its demands for conformity than any governmental agency you are ever likely to encounter.

    The real Mafias of this world begin with control of the street.

    They see themselves - and want to be seen by others - as an extended family or clan. More Russian than Russia. That gives them legitimacy and power a gun cannot buy.
       

  6. Her actual comments are less tech-oriented by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Informative

    The actual remarks by Commissioner Clyburn are a lot less technical than the SL summary implies. What she wants doesn't have so much to do with the physical deployment of broadband (the "last mile"), as it does with actually adopting the broadband that's available (what she called the last "half-mile".)

    Apparently, 93 million Americans don't use broadband, even though they could. Why? The Commish says its because 1) broadband costs too much, 2) non-users lack "digital literacy", and 3) non-users just don't see the benefit. Her proposed fixes have a lot more in common with the Peace Corps than with the White Spaces Coalition: provide free broadband to the poor, and form a National Digital Literacy Corps to deliver a National Digital Literacy Program while going home-to-home to help set up broadband. Her model is the recent national switch-over to digital TV, where hundreds of thousands of volunteers went around and hooked people's TVs up.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  7. more likely motivation by stephencrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't it more likely, whatever are the specifics, that this kind of announcement, coming from the Feds, is an attempt at creating competitive pressure on the current ISPs to expand their network and/or keep prices stable or lower?

  8. We've already paid for it, but will never get it by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've already paid 320 billion to get fiber to the home that never got installed. If the FCC and state utilities would simply hold the telcos to the existing contracts it'd be a done deal. But we'd have to have politicians not beholden to the industry. My local House rep Fred Upton was previously chair of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. Not surprising to see SBC, Verizon, and other telcos giving upwards of 100K a year (according to opensecrets.org). Corporatism at its finest.

  9. I understand it's a new concept to some of you... by TaggartAleslayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have any of you tuned in to over-the-air television recently? Imagine that, but with the internet.

    The FCC would be doing it's job properly to open a range in the spectrum to public internet, license it to qualified providers, and then play watch dog over it.

    If you're worried about internet wardrobe malfunctions being banned, and you should be, then you should stop with the grumbling and get behind this movement while promoting freedom of speech and expression on the internet as it always has been.

    Just because Cable TV has more channels, that doesn't mean it's the only way to tune in. Trust me, I know. I grew up in an area that you couldn't actually get cable. Which also means I couldn't get broadband.

    Eventually we will all have to get used to the idea that the internet is a utility in the sense that it drives commerce and carries public concern. It's our modern electricity. It has to be made available to everyone for us to continue as an equal society. The government will become involved. It's up to us to determine whether that's in a fashion like our current electric and telecom monopolies or in a more acceptable manner.

  10. Re:lacking broadband penetration ? by TaggartAleslayer · · Score: 2, Informative

    You've never visited a rural area, have you? Draw a circle even 50 miles around a major population center and I guarantee there are pockets where people live and can't get broadband.

    Just because cities are covered, it doesn't mean everyone is. I do admit that it is becoming less of an issue even in small towns, but any time I go back to Willis Texas, I am reminded that "DSL doesn't cover it and the cable company won't go there". Once again, just because you look around and find it to be quite available, it doesn't mean everyone does. We're a really big country.

  11. In a sense, it doesn't matter by smchris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The media people receive in sparsely populated areas is already "heavily filtered, censored, and monitored." Just drive across Wyoming some time and see what the radio offers.