FCC cancels meeting for free Internet vote
The Federal Communications Commission has canceled a meeting scheduled at which it planned to vote on a controversial free Internet plan.
The group has been considering whether it should auction off 25 megahertz of wireless spectrum in the 2155MHz to 2180MHz band. In exchange for using the spectrum, the FCC would require license holders to offer some free wireless broadband service, as a way to provide free Internet access to millions of Americans who either can't afford or don't want to pay for high-speed Internet access. That Web service would have been filtered for pornography and material deemed not suitable for children. People 18 and over would have the option to opt out of the filtered service.
The FCC was set to vote on the plan at a meeting on Thursday, December 18. But the plan has been met with opposition from several top officials, wireless providers, and even civil rights groups.
In a letter sent to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin on Wednesday, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez expressed the Bush administration's opposition to the idea of imposing requirements on spectrum buyers.
"The administration believes that the (airwaves) should be auctioned without price or product mandate," Gutierrez wrote, according to The Wall Street Journal. "The history of FCC spectrum auctions has shown that the potential for problems increases in instances where licensing is overly prescriptive or designed around unproven business models."
The element of Web filtering worried at least one privacy group. "It's very troubling," Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Los Angeles Times. "A government-mandated filter at the network level means the government can block anything it finds objectionable."
Existing wireless providers objected to the plan for entirely different issues. T-Mobile USA, which spent $4.2 billion in 2006 to acquire spectrum in an adjacent band, said that opening up this spectrum would cause interference and disrupt service, a claim the FCC says it disproved in October.
And other logistical questions--such as exactly how the service would be filtered for inappropriate content and how the age of people who opted out of the filtered service would be verified--remained unanswered.
The FCC has other problems as well. Earlier this week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a report accusing Martin of ignoring his responsibilities and abusing his power as FCC chairman. A detailed report released on Tuesday and stemming from a bipartisan investigation in January claims Martin manipulated and withheld information from Congress and other FCC commissioners, and ignored evidence that certain national communications programs were being grossly mismanaged. The report describes a "climate of fear" that pervades the FCC and kept some people from testifying publicly.
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-Calif.) on Friday sent a letter to Martin asking him to not to take action on any controversial policy proposals, according to the Journal. And on Friday night, the FCC reported it would, in fact, cancel the upcoming meeting.
Jennifer Guevin is assistant managing editor of CNET News. She focuses on science and green tech. But she also makes the occasional contribution to CNET's kitchen gadgets blog or writes about the latest Web distraction. Once a week, she takes the mic as host of CNET's Daily News Podcast. E-mail Jennifer. 
If Government wants to provide free Internet, they should give people $35 coupons.
In addiition, I would propose Section 10 (I have proposed Section 9 for automobiles).
It would be like Section 8 for housing. People would pay a fraction of their income for Clear WiMax based on income...Government would cover the rest.
No need for additional bureaucracy and regulation. Just work with what's working: Clear Wimax and let Government help give access to more people.
The government should look at the Internet as an infrastructure project no different than roads (and not toll roads). The better the infrastructure, the better the economy will innovate new ideas.
There's more to this than meets the eye. This issue is probably just another where we will have to wait for the new President and Congress to be seated before there can be a resolution.
Then again, who's going to pay for the computer they need? And the upkeep on that machine? Is that all free, too? And who's going to prevent them from selling the computer when they need money?
Pentium 4, 512MB of RAM, Ubuntu 8.10
No upkeep of course, 'cause it's not Windows. I also present you unlimited free support from myself.
ethana2@gmail.com
....can't sell it 'cause the only thing in it worth crap is already Free.
Only in America can you be a skinflint and still get what you want.
There are poor people who are "skinflints" because they have to be!
$50a month for internet is a huge ripoff.
that is why we have places called public libraries, information is important but i think it is foolhardy for the US tax payer to foot the bill on a luxary. Information is abundant, and why it may be a "inconvience" to go to the library, that is what they were built for. Sorry but with the major problems we face like a deficit the size of kingdom come i can not in good concise support such a measure.
First, i feel that, on the surface, the idea of free internet access seems like a great idea, as it promotes equal access to information.
However, the idea, that such free access would empower the government to determine the propriety of the content to be accessed, scares the dickens out of me.
As an American I enjoy the freedom of speech. And I am very troubled with the idea that Government, which under our Constitution must guarantee our freedom to speak, can give itself unlimited right to regulate access tto free speech.
anyone in power has the per chance to abuse said power.
should use that spectrum to roll out free wifi just like the governments electrification project back in the day.
It doesn't need government filters.
The difference is though that roads are not a luxuary they are required, you need commerce, so roads pay for themselves, because businesses use them. The internet is not something that i would call "required" to do business, we have libraries we should be investing in those, not free internet.
Even from a humanitarian perspective it is just not necessary, you need electricity to cool your house if you are old or young. You need heat if you live in a cold area, you need phone service so you can dial 911 or give a phone number to get a job. You need housing to keep you drive. You do not need internet there are many sources to get internet, sorry but its just not necessary, its not something that is absolutly required either and there are many sources to get it for free.
Just my 2¢
And thats precisely why we should get something in return.
The internet is the biggest libaury in the world, sure, you can surf for porn too, but it also can answer any question you can think of.
Providing that level of universal knowledge access to as many people as possible can only be a good thing.
Of course though, they dont need great internet access for that. Just the basics.
And no, it should not be filtered. Filtering would end up being more costly then providing the access to start with.
Not that the US dosnt filter the internet anyway. No one using DNS severs based in the us can access certain websites offering hollidays to Cuba, or even just information on the country.
The US lost free speach awhile ago, but hasnt noticed yet.
At least in China you know your being filtered.
The problem isn't always not wanting to work. It might be that jobs just aren't available, or there are hundreds of people applying for the same job. Hopefully you'll end up unemployed without the opportunity of another paycheck to experience what you think you know so well first hand and then you can judge others.
Access to the internet is like having access to transportation... It might just help you be able to get to a job that you wouldn't be able to access without it.
I'm all for free Internet, but it has to be done in a rationale manner. Imagine if the Federal Government decided to install and maintain, but never monitor nor censor nor give a damn about content, a WiFi access on top of every powerpole, telephone pole, lightpole, traffic light, and those occasional blinking red lights on top of stop signs? But my points about never monitoring it would get squashed. Oh, well.
The Internet only proliferated because of its open, free access design, where every one could contribute and benefit. I have been a part of the Internet, since before the WWW, back in its infancy. Its greatest cost is in the wired networks tying it all together, which absurdly enough, is owned by corperations (imagine if all the roads between towns were owned by them). Wireless is the way to eliminate that constraint, the EM Spectrum is everywhere, and costs next to nothing to use, let alone maintain (thank-you mother nature). Proper organization, could allow for it to be efficiently utilized in such a way as we would never run out of bandwidth, and never outgrow it. (Go ahead and argue this point, mother nature will prove you wrong again, every living cellular organism employs a similar cell to cell communication model, I am proscribing, that does not matter how large the organism is.)
A network by design should not care what it is transmitting or recieving. Just as a road or highway should not care what color or brand of car you are driving on it. As for the issue of censorship, and protecting children, the answer is simple, require a standard of content flagging, within the network protocols, that allow you to filter content at the end users, and only at the end users discretion. Make it illegal to not provide, strip the flag, misleadingly flag, nor censor a particular flagged content from the network at any point, and we will have control over what we want, instead of someone else.
Yes the Internet can be FREE, it in fact used to be before corperations got a hold of it. When it was primarily based in universities, you had no individual account charges, no bandwidth caps (other than hardware limitations) and no throttling, it had a fixed telcom cost regardless of how much data or users were accessing it.
I'm currently trying to find free or inexpensive internet access. I don't need a phone or TV, but am finding I only have 2 choices. One I can't afford after the first year service is over. They couldn't tell me how much it would go up to and then I get some ridiculous bill after I'd canceled on time because I can't stay with a service that won't tell me how much it's going to cost and get a surprise bill which is exactly what I got. The only other choice I seem to have is telling me I need phone service with them to get high-speed internet service. So they force you into other services to get what you want.
If I can access the internet, I can have free/inexpensive phone service and can watch most anything I want online for free, have the world at my fingertips. How right is it to force me to pay for stuff I don't need just so I can have access to the internet. Sure there are dial ups for low cost but you need a phone for dial up and I don't think you can access a dial up using skype or VOIP because you need to be connected to the internet for them to work, so where does that leave working Americans that have a limited budget? It's not like the government is going to bail me out because I've made poor choices. I just want to have an economical choice!
I for one, would love to have the free bandwidth given to me so I could make free broadband/high speed internet service available and really free even if it's only for individual/residential customers. Look, I know it's not as simple as that, but it would be nice to have more choices. As it is, you're stuck with whatever is available in your area at the price they want to charge you. What interests me is that they can actually charge different people different amounts of money for identical service. How fair/American is that? That shouldn't be allowed, smacks of redlining. Where I live there's not much choice. Available providers are like comparing apples and oranges and are way over priced because they really have no competition.
So, Senator Rockefeller, if you are reading this, please contact me, the teacher from Bernie's (BTW I'm living in Wheeling) so we can discuss strategies on allowing internet access to all with the freedom to choose what you view. Remember, knowledge is power and the internet is the most absolutely fabulous way for people to access knowledge, interact with people that they might not have possibly had the opportunity to meet, and gain valuable insights, etc. I'm beginning to think that's why some don't want free or inexpensive access to the internet so everyone can access it. HAVING THE INTERNET IS LIKE HAVING A LIBRARY/THE WORLD AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! Internet access at home is good for everyone and it?s so much easier to find things. Even the switch to digital for television is going to limit access to information for many households. Sure, everyone has a TV or several but how many homes will go without TV after Feb 2009 (I?m going without it now. Even with the coupon, you still have to pay $20 + tax for 2 TV so what about the other TVs people might have? This is forcing people to have limited access to what was once free information, pay for free TV or get cable/satellite, or buy new TVs I digress...so I suppose at some point this would happen to free internet too unless I was the one providing it) Why would the government want to limit access to information (this is limiting access to knowledge based on economics which means the masses can't afford what the monopolies charge since there's really no competition) or allow a few to be the gatekeepers to accessing the internet? We need a national internet system like the national interstate highway system. Right now there's almost no way to get around the internet toll roads and they can charge whatever they want, deny access to whoever or whatever they want. So if you think what you?re able to access online isn?t being limited by your provider, think again. I don't like a lot of government control, but something has to be done for US to have more freedom of choice when it comes to internet access. American infrastructure needs free internet access! WIFI or Free Net would be another valuable asset that our infrastructure upgrade/rebuild sorely needs!
- by istopdeath November 30, 2009 8:03 AM PST
- search opportunity for evolving humans
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(35 Comments)"internet coup" google, go 100 deep, then help us when you "get it".