Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

M2Z's Free, Wireless Broadband Killed In Advance

Posted by timothy on from the sorry-wrong-bribe-please-try-again dept.

mspohr writes with a sad excerpt from Fast Company: "Despite a seemingly stout business plan, and all the financial, social, and educational benefits it would bring, the FCC's just turned down M2Z's application for a coast-to-coast free wireless broadband system. ... The FCC is known to have heard complaints about M2Z's plan from existing wireless carriers. Though M2Z's network would've operated at under 1 Mbps peak speeds — meaning it was very slow by today's standards, and probably snail-like by tomorrow's — its free pricing may well have tempted many folks away from spending cash with an established ISP. Those carriers are now reported to be pleased with the FCC's decision, though they argue it's in line with the greater National Broadband Plan. Whenever that actually gets off the ground."

24 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Free Internet! by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Citizens: What a great idea! Slow, but available. If I can't and/or don't want to pay a lot for faster Internet, we have an option!
    FCC: Sorry, but this isn't in the best interests of the corporations.

    1. Re:Free Internet! by thijsh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Great plan! It would take care of the whole 'right to internet' idea, and make the US one of the first countries to effectively roll out some form of free internet to all citizens. Putting the country at the forefront of modern rights for its citizens. Any government 'for the people' would jump at this idea...
      Yeah, I can see how the corporatocracy would think this is a bad idea. There is no profit in citizen rights...

    2. Re:Free Internet! by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And who should we blame? Corps, who like everyone, has their best interests in mind, or those who grant their wishes? It should be pretty clear as to the real cause of monopolies...

    3. Re:Free Internet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? We already do that with television. Who died and made you the sole arbiter of what progress is and isn't?

    4. Re:Free Internet! by pyrosine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell that to the RIAA

    5. Re:Free Internet! by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cause is a constant flow of money from corporations to government officials.

      This undermines the democracy, as officials tend to represent those who elect them.

      Without such external money, the officials would tend to represent the voters.
      With such external money, and a system that requires expensive campaigns, the officials will tend to represent those who fund the campaign.

      One way to fix the problem is to eliminate political donations entirely, and only have government funded election information broadcasts (debates, candidate info pages, candidate Q/A,...), on common media (internet, tv, magazines,...).

      Another way to fix the problem is enforce a per-person donation limit, and realize that a corporation is multiple people. A corporation would be required to have people within the corporation (stockholders and/or employees) sign off on the donation. The donation amount would be limited according to the number of people that agree to it.

    6. Re:Free Internet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got an idea. That senator of yours -- you know, that ol' boy that's been in there about 30 years -- get rid of him! Do a little homework on your candidates before penciling in the name you've seen on the most billboards.

  2. So let me get this straight... by geogob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the application was turned down by the FCC for undisclosed reasons, but following the application of many complaints by the competitors. mmmm.
    This sounds about as bad as something our good friends at the CRTC would do.

    The argument that it went against the bold national broadband plan is really unsettling. Maybe we should somehow remind them that it's not because broadband should be available to everyone that everyone wants to (or can) pay its price.

  3. It would have worked great for basic internet.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't need that much bandwidth to read email, or browse non *tube sites. The article doesn't say if it was open AP free or free with registration (which would have greatly reduced the OMG porn factor), but I'm guessing free with registration, because OMG terrorists.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  4. If you are going to have a "National Plan"... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...it is going to include things you won't like, This is just a taste of things to come.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  5. Corporations People by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simple as that. When this system will make a large-enough-to-afford-lobbying company rich, then it'll pass.

  6. Mobile phone providers too by RivenAleem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If we had 1mb free wireless internet all across the country, the impact would be huge to mobile phone providers. Lots of people would just switch to using wifi and google voice/skype or similar to make calls. 1mb is more than enough to handle a non-video call.

  7. Absolutely Too Much Regulation by anguirus.x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Think about this. This company is being criticized for trying to offer a product that is a generation *behind* the current technology. Just think if you wanted to buy a microwave, but you were forced to pay double what you wanted to because some government regulation mandated you adhere to a minimum power rating, safety features like locking doors, etc. etc. etc. It would be considered intrusive and there are a ton of people who would just say "Fsck it, I don't really need soggy pizza rolls anyways". That's what we have right now with the FCC. There are millions of Americans who have no internet because it's too expensive, and they have no need for the bandwidth. OK established corporations, game time, what can *you* offer us?

  8. FCC by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Federal Corporative Custodian?
    No, really, what possible valid explanation can they roll out? Maybe they fear that all these hotspots would shred America apart?

    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  9. "Can be used to watch porn" by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article mentions that one of the early complains against the proposed free network operation was that it can be used to watched porn.

    Well of course it can be used for that. It can also be used to plan terrorist attacks. Or even more nefarious things: people may us it to discuss whether to plant yellow or pink flowers in their garden.

    Interesting how this "but it can be used to watch porn!" argument pops up any time someone proposes a free or cheap new way to connect to the Internet.

    It makes one wonder why this is never used seriously against established operators. Why this is never used against proposals to providing cheap Internet to poor families (supplied by established ISPs of course). It couldn't be something political, or could it?

  10. More porn equates to LESS children by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Poor families have a tendancy to have more children. They don't need porn."

    On the contrary; if I am to take you at your word, it sounds like that is exactly what they need!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  11. Where have I heard this before?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This happened in history already almost 100 years ago. Wireless... free... the only difference, it was electrical power instead of internet. They tore down the Wardenclyffe tower because they couldn't meter the power usage. Meaning free wireless Power/Internet/ doesn't work... how did Radio get past that?? Oh ads...right. The thing is even if this went through would it really stop people from paying for fast speed? Not necessarily.. The people who would use this free internet wouldn't be people who already have an ISP at home, but they'd use this on the go, or really really really cheap welfare people who just cant afford internet and never would/could pay for an ISP anyway! So who's losing out here? The people. Thank you and good night.

    1. Re:Where have I heard this before?? by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This happened in history already almost 100 years ago. Wireless... free... the only difference, it was electrical power instead of internet. They tore down the Wardenclyffe tower because they couldn't meter the power usage. Meaning free wireless Power/Internet/ doesn't work... how did Radio get past that?? Oh ads...right.

      Wardenclyffe can be described as a power plant only if you consider the demands of a crystal radio set to be a practical demonstration of broadcast power.

      The Shoreham, L.I., tower was dynamited in 1917 - on the grounds that was altogether too useful a marker for U-Boats operating off-shore. Wardenclyffe Tower

      In 1905 your basic electric appliance is the light bulb.

      There is nothing else you can buy - or at least nothing else that you can afford to buy - and your residential power demands are negligible.

      Which means that residential power sales are negligible and broadcast power becomes something very close to a product without a market.

      The farmer has his windmill and lead-acid batteries. The small town or factory a coal-fired plant of its own or hydroelectric power from Niagara.

      These prices are from the 1922 Sears Catalog of Electrical Goods, shown adjusted for inflation:

      Electric fan $10 ($127)
      Sewing machine $40 ($507)
      Vacuum cleaner $35 ($444)
      Wringer washing machine $99 ($1268)

      There is no electric stove in the catalog. No refrigerator.

      The electric era really begins with the 1930s. Not the twenties. Not thee tens.

      J. P. Morgan put about $150,000 ($3,000,000) of his own money into the 250 KW Wardenclyffe project - with nothing more to show for it than an unfinished building.

      No transmitter - and perhaps more importantly - no receivers.

  12. What about A2L ???? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the FCC is just looking out for everyones best interest here. They obviously figured out that they couldn't believe M2Z's claim to offer it to everyone, when they clearly intend to exclude everyone in the A to L range!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  13. Watch your prefix by Gryphia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they were only rolling out a 1 milibit per second connection, I doubt it would be good for much of anything. That's 56 million times slower than an old 56k modem. A 1 Mbs (megabit per second) would be better, but still slow, and a 1 MBs would be an even better. If the plan really was for a 1 mbs connection we lost nothing by having the FCC shut it down. Or maybe someone just needs to pay more attention to their prefixes.

  14. Good riddance by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This wasn't a free nationwide internet plan. This was a spectrum grab with the nationwide internet plan added to sweeten the deal for the FCC.

    M2Z's trick was going to be to use a spare bit of the radio spectrum, the 2GHz "AWS-3" band, and earn itself cash by embedding ads in its free Net service as well as licensing out part of the spectrum it would then be controlling for other commercial uses.

    The second part is the key thing; they would have gotten the AWS-3 band, nationwide, for free, and then leased it back out.

  15. Who put you in charge? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you RTFA? No, of course not. They claim they have a good business plan. What's more, it's none of your or the damned government's business to judge their business plan, it is their investors' money, and if they want to throw it away, it is, literally, THEIR business.

    And if you don't like watching ads, don't. But it's none of your business, again literally, if others do, or even whether others do.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
    1. Re:Who put you in charge? by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, yes, I RTFA.

      Remember MetroPCS?

      And yes, I get to judge their business plan, just like you do, like the FCC did. Is it none of my business? Then why is it yours? Hijacking a discussion because you don't like the criticism seems inane.

      From 1977 to here, I've watched loads of ostensibly interesting products fail for two simple reasons: 1) not enough 2) lack of capitalization. Do you wonder why the US falls so far behind in broadband? It's because the geography to cover it is miserable. This scheme is both underpowered, and vastly under capitalized. Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile can't adequately cover the geography, and they've spent billions and billions and billions.

      Do I like any of these carriers-- no-- they're uniformly hideous and my choice of Verizon is based on the best of the worst, IMHO. The FCC did what was prudent, bribes from the telcos aside.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  16. Sneeky plan for 20mhz? by computererds · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AWS-3 is a 20mhz swath from 2155-2175 mhz. Compare that to 802.11. Each channel in 802.11 is alocated 22mhz.

    I think either you don't realize what was really being sold off, or you are misleading.

    Think about that-- less than one 802.11 wireless channel is what they would have gave up. Now that bandwidth does have a price if the FCC were to sell our bandwidth (yes our, it is the citizens spectrum) they estimate a sale at 2 billion. Do you think two billion is fair for a national broadband plan? How much do you think implementing a nationwide free wireless network should cost? How much commercial spectrum leasing can they do in that limited spectrum?

    AT&T, Nokia, T-Mobile, Verizon and several other wireless industry heavyweights aren't only against this M2Z plan, they are also against the open auction of the 2155-2175mhz band. They don't want competition, it's as simple as that.