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."

Comments

Cue the

[bobstreo]

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.

Re:Cue the

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get by just fine without it. You won't starve, you won't go into convulsions, you won't die without it.

[...]
If you really need it, and can't afford the luxury of having it run into your very own home, you can always go to the public library to use it there

I fail to see how this differs from education.

Re:Cue the

[Dins]

Internet access and educational access are quickly becoming the same thing. I have a 15 year old son. Of course he's good with computers and the internet (he's my son after all) but I'm amazed at what his high school coursework requires now. It all but assumes he has constant access to the internet. Hell he even uses his iPod on the school's wifi network for classwork in class.

Of course we have good access at home, but if a kid didn't it would be a huge handicap. Yes, they can go to school computer labs and the library, etc., but even that access is dwindling now that some schools all but assume a good computer and internet access at home. His school is a very good school, but all schools will follow suit eventually.

Re:Cue the

[Talderas]

Me too. Someone on slashdot used 'cue' properly.

Re:Cue the

[Synerg1y]

Tell that to all the people that are employed because they self-taught themselves something using the internet. And yes you can go to the public library, plenty of people do, but the public library isn't always open & one isn't always available depending where you live. And based on your statements, people can get by "just fine" without education, it has nothing to do whatsoever with food, air, & water, but it's definitely a nice to have in that sense, so is the internet.

Re:Cue the

[jimmy_dean]

I agree. Not only is it a luxury item that is important, but it's too important for the government to control. Can you imagine the security implications and headaches a network like this would have? There are so many technical, economic and legal unintended consequences to this, it's not even funny. If the government might do anything (and even here I'm skeptical), they should help make sure that the current private means of getting on the 'net remain competitive and sooner than later, cheap Internet in many different forms will be ubiquitous without the unintended consequences that only a government can create.

I predict this will also be a new avenue for the US federal government to regulate the Internet into oblivion. This is a setup for a massive new power grab.

Re:Cue the

[mdielmann]

Not only is it a luxury item that is important, but it's too important for the government to control.

So, more important than roads, making sure drugs are safe for their intended use, and the protection of the sovereignty of your nation. Gotcha.

Comes with Free SOPA/CISPA Style monitoring too!

[ClassicASP]

You get what you pay for

Source?

[vlm]

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.

Re:Methinks . . .

[ozydingo]

First, don't assume the government has your best interests at heart (they don't), and second assume everything you do will be fully and completely monitored without the slightest expectation of privacy.

Yep, sounds like similar service to me