Slashdot Mirror
FCC Proposal Would Cover the US With Public Wi-Fi
pigrabbitbear writes "Internet access is an essential need on par with education access, but at what point do regulators recognize that? When will government officials acknowledge that widespread, guaranteed access is essential to fostering growth in the country? Somewhat surprisingly, that time is now, as the FCC is now calling for nationwide free wi-fi networks to be opened up to the public. The FCC proposes buying back spectrum from TV stations that would allow for what the Washington Post is dubbing 'super wi-fi,' as the commission wants to cover the country with wide-ranging, highly-penetrative networks. Essentially, you can imagine the proposal as covering a majority of the country with open-access data networks, similar to cell networks now, that your car, tablet, or even phone could connect to. That means no one is ever disconnected, and some folks – especially light users and the poor – could likely ditch regular Internet and cell plans altogether."
Lobby "contributions" from Sprint, AT&T Tmobile, Comcast, Time Warner... The war chests of our representatives and senators will overflow with joy
if they defeat this.
You get what you pay for
Internet Access should be like Library Access.
It is a little different because it is for knowledge, commerce, and entertainmnet.
But it seems like a gevernment service that should provide for a populace to thrive.
Wasn't the intention of getting that spectrum which was used for analog TV to use it for such things? If it isn't suitable for such, why the change? If the new digital TV spectrum was suited for this, why was it sold?
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
How many municipalities have been sued into oblivion by incumbents who cried "unfair competition"?
What's the source? Its a /. post of a journalist story about a journalist story about a journalist story then I gave up trying to track back.
I poked around fcc.gov and found almost nothing, so its either really old, really new, or really made up / out of context / unofficial daydream.
I'm an old time reader of FCC part 97 (and others!) so don't try to scare me off with "we need non-technical journalists to translate into prole-speak" I'm quite sure I could handle the primary source... if it actually exists.
Another thing is it won't be wifi although journalists confuse any wireless internet access with wifi. Lets say you get UHF tv channel 46 vacated and reassigned. That doesn't mean a magic firmware download, even to a SDR, will necessarily magically start working in that 662-668 MHz channel.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I thought the only essential needs were food, water and shelter.
My takehome pay just decreased again.
The government has no business spending on infrastructure. Roads, bridges, telephones, police, fire fighters, and democracy have all been bad enough for our great nation!
I don't want the Federal Government running some general public access internet. Very Bad Idea.
I do want the FCC to open up existing infrastructure to alternative carriers. The current plan which allows carriers to exclude competitors is very bad.
I do want the FCC to make available bandwidth to more carriers, and to open up more bandwidth to WiFi.
I do want Congress to pass a law banning cable franchises by local and state governments.
I do want laws specifically enabling municipal internet utilities, especially on this new bandwidth.
Tor won't protect you from identity theft, that's what encryption is for. Tor without encryption just tells MORE people what you are doing.
I thought the only essential needs were food, water and shelter.
That's true, along with air and sleep*.
Also, needs are defined in different ways depending on circumstance, with no consensus. Certainly food is a need, but is sunshine? We get vitamin D from sunshine, and diet can't make up for lack. Sex is a biological imperative, but can at any time be put off until later.
Needs also form a sort of "hierarchy", where once you are satisfied at a certain level, adding more at that level will gain you nothing. A company can't raise morale by making the bathroom even cleaner than it is - once the bathroom is "clean enough", extra work makes no appreciable difference. Once you have enough to eat, having more doesn't make you happier.
"Safety" is also a need, and depending on the school of thought it comes before or after food and water.
Once you have several layers of needs met, you reach the layer of "self actualization", which is loosely "the need to accomplish something".
That's what this proposal addresses - the need for people to better themselves, and to do something useful with their time.
This proposal is a good idea in many ways - ethically, economically, technically, environmentally. There's no down-side that I can see.
To take one example (economics), new businesses arise from innovation built on infrastructure. This type of infrastructure will foster an enormous boon in productivity, business, employment, and general well-being of people in the country.
In the same manner that the Interstate Highway System fostered economic progress by giving companies easy access to cheap product delivery.
This is exactly the type of project that centralized government should be doing - it promotes growth, increased productivity, jobs, and general welfare. It's of benefit to the people, and not pork directed to specific selected companies.
*I hope this doesn't read as snarky - that's not my intent.