FCC rejects free Wi-Fi start-up's spectrum plans
Editor's note: This story incorrectly stated the speed of M2Z's premium service offering. The correct speed is 3 megabits per second.
A Silicon Valley start-up that sought permission to build a "free, family-friendly" wireless Internet service on a stretch of unused radio spectrum has been shot down by federal regulators.
Late Friday, the Federal Communications Commission rejected a nearly 16-month-old petition by Menlo Park, Calif.-based M2Z Networks to receive an exclusive, 15-year license to build and operate such a network in the 2155MHz-to-2175MHz band, in return for depositing a portion of its revenues into the U.S. Treasury. In the same order, the FCC also rejected a similar proposal from a company called NetFreeUS. (Click here for a PDF of the FCC's order.)
The FCC said it wasn't persuaded that allowing a single company to control the slice of spectrum without first seeking broader comment on how the band should be used would serve the public interest. The regulators concluded that it's preferable to conduct their usual rule-making process to set parameters for the spectrum's use--a move that would begin "shortly," they said.
"Many have suggested that we should auction this spectrum, while still others suggest that due to the high demand for this spectrum we should consider unlicensed use of the band," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement. "Each of these proposals has merit, and consideration of either would be inappropriately foreclosed by granting forbearance in this instance."
M2Z's plan was to offer a free, ad-supported network--plus the cost of a "reception device"--that would include a mandatory filtering system designed "to block access to sites purveying pornographic, obscene or indecent material." Users who didn't want the filters or wanted speeds faster than 384 kilobits per second down and 128Kbps up could upgrade to a "premium" service, at an unspecified cost, that would give subscribers access to 3-megabit-per-second speeds.
Some politicians heralded the plan because of the filtering features and what some perceived as ambitious "build-out" goals--that is, reaching 95 percent of the American population within a decade of the project's start. Some public safety officials also endorsed the plan because M2Z pledged to let them hook up whatever devices they pleased to the free network.
The regulators, in their order, said they were unimpressed by the "relatively slow speed" M2Z planned to offer its users and said the company's proposed network construction benchmarks were not "particularly aggressive."
The wireless industry had strongly opposed the idea, arguing it was a self-serving attempt on M2Z's part to sidestep the ordinary process for auctioning off vacant spectrum.
A loose coalition of public interest groups also recently voiced reservations (click for PDF) about M2Z's commitment to requiring network filters on the free service, arguing such a plan raises First Amendment concerns. The filing, penned by the Media Access Project, said the group wasn't convinced the band even needs to be licensed, but if it is, the group urged the FCC to impose Net neutrality requirements on those who license that slice of spectrum and require that they sell it on a wholesale basis.
M2Z's next steps weren't immediately clear. The firm's chief executive, John Muleta, told Bloomberg News that he would be active in whatever proceedings follow but hadn't yet decided whether to appeal the FCC's decision.
democratic brand of totalitarianism in which the government
regulates even the most minute actions. It's quite sophisticated.
The government doesn't outlaw free speech or free market
transactions directly (usually), it establishes terms of "fairness"
and "public interest" that allow bureaucrats to regulate away
unapproved activities. As the monster grows the United States
will eventually set the standard for seamless, all-inclusive
tyranny.
There is still a rear-guard defense of traditional liberty, as
represented by the candidacy of Ron Paul, but how long until the
flame is extinguished?
This third option of give the spectrum for free to a single entity for exclusive use is just bizarre. These firms should be ashamed they wasted everyone's time with such a brazen spectrum grab.
wide. Considering most routers only have a range of 1000's of
feet and you can tune routers to the tenth or even hundredth of
a MHz, that would be a sufficient width. This would allow all
kinds of community projects such as community wireless
internet for a hundred dollars a year (per person/residence) plus
the initial cost of the equipment.
I understand the idea of auctioning off spectrum and there are
good points such as one carrier doesn't interfere with another
and such but, that should be balanced with some open network
space.
I would propose a system similar to the radio band. Carriers are
given licensees to certain frequencies but there are also open
bands for citizens and bands reserved for Fire, Police, and EMS.
I do agree however, that this company's plan was bizarre in the
extreme in a way because there is not really any way to pay
operating costs for a network through advertising. And the
speeds sucked especially when regular routers give 25 and 30
MB/s on average when not limited so no one would really want
to use it given the prevalence of cheap (relatively) high speed
internet in urban and suburban areas where they would have to
roll out their service to even have a chance of making their
advertisement supported model work.
802.11g is 54 mbps > 24 mbps (3 MBPS)
I usually don't even comment on these stories because I do not have an account but this misinformation made me sign up right away!
"It makes me wonder if the people who write these stories actually have a background in technology."
Right on!!
- Oh NO...
- by OneWithTech September 3, 2007 6:22 AM PDT
- ...you did not say NET NEUTRALITY! And FREE means FREE! Not
- Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)ad supported or a PREMIUM service.
Just another way to dupe society into spending more money on
an informational service that should be FREE, with not strings
attached!
Good call on the FCC's behalf. Now if they would just DEAL with
Net Neutrality the web would be a safer place for my kids and
yours.
Call up your Congressman today and ask him what he's doing to
protect our kids from the perils of the web. I double dog dare
everybody to call your Congressman and ask him what he
KNOWS about Net Neutrality and how it can affect our children's
future!
Don't be scared Vote for Net Neutrality!
Justin
Tech01.net