Politicos want free wireless broadband on unused airwaves
This story was updated at 11:40 a.m. PDT with correct units for DSL broadband speeds currently on the market.
A Silicon Valley Democrat in the U.S. Congress is proposing a new auction of unused radio spectrum, but with some ambitious strings attached: The winner would have to offer a free, wireless broadband network that reaches 95 percent of the American population within a decade.
Voicing disappointment that familiar large wireless carriers scooped up the most significant share of airwaves in a recently concluded auction, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act, which would direct the Federal Communications Commission to auction off a band of wireless spectrum between 2,155 megahertz and 2,180MHz that currently lies fallow and impose detailed rules on the winning bidder. Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who leads a House telecommunications and Internet panel, and Rep. Chris Cannon, a Utah Republican, have signed on as co-sponsors.
Under the proposed measure, aside from offering the free broadband network, the network operator would have to:
• begin offering "always-on" broadband service within two years of receiving the license
• offer a service free of subscription fees, airtime, usage or other charges to consumers and "authorized public safety users"
• ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobits per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 kilobits per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines)
• outfit the free service with "a technology protection measure or measures that protect underage users from accessing obscene or indecent material through such service"
• publish royalty-free standards so that others can develop and deploy equipment that can operate on the network
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)
(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)"While the auction required under this legislation is open to anyone, it is my hope that the bold conditions of requiring free, family friendly service will encourage the entry of a new kind of national broadband service provider," Eshoo said in a statement.
The requirements, however, sound strikingly similar to a plan that a Silicon Valley start-up called M2Z Networks offered to the FCC in recent years.
Specifically, M2Z sought permission to obtain a 15-year exclusive, nationwide license to essentially the same band of spectrum described in the Eshoo bill. It wanted to offer a "free," advertising-supported tier of service that would offer speeds of at least 384Kbps down and 128Kbps up, and a "premium" tier with 3Mbps speeds. And, like the Eshoo bill, M2Z pledged to reach 95 percent of the American population within 10 years and outfit the free tier with filters designed to block obscene content.
The FCC dismissed that petition, opting to undertake its usual public comment and rulemaking process before deciding who would control the spectrum. It has reportedly already begun moving ahead with that process, although it wasn't clear when it would finish.
An Eshoo aide said her boss had conversations with M2Z while drafting the bill, but her motivation was "primarily to provide alternative means of broadband access for more Americans, and this fallow spectrum seemed to be a real opportunity."
M2Z CEO John Muleta said the bill's introduction is a hopeful sign for would-be new entrants like his firm. "What we've been advocating for is, there needs to be new entry, not necessarily more regulation, to do innovative and unusual things that would get more broadband to more people," he said in a telephone interview with CNET News.com.
An array of consumer groups supported M2Z's idea, but the wireless industry opposed its original petition, calling it a "self-serving attempt to gain access to valuable spectrum outside of the auction process."
The new House proposal doesn't appear to be much better in the industry's eyes. Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, said his group objects to the stringent conditions it would impose on bidders, saying flexible conditions would ultimately raise more money for the federal treasury.
"We agree with Congresswoman Eshoo that additional spectrum must be made available and we look forward to working with her on this important endeavor," he said in an e-mail on Friday. "However, mandating how providers should deploy and use such spectrum is something we can't support."
? ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobits per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 megabits per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines)
You probably meant:
? ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobytes per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 kilobytes per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines)
No thanks.
They will surely figure out how they can tax a "free" service.
This will be paid for by advertisements.
If you can have broadcast television networks under much the same conditions, you can have free ad-supported broadband.
News flash: The Federal Government is NOT an ISP!
Eshoo is just another fool because she sees every problem as a federal government problem and she has no idea and no care about the problems she will create by assuming the federal government actually can be an answer to all the country's problems. And to make matters worse, she sees the lack of free wireless internet as a problem!
Go home, Anna. You have no idea what role the federal government is supposed to play in American society. You don't dictate private business operations. You have no right to set or control product pricing for private companies. You have no idea what it means to be an ISP - no idea what your amazing solution means long-term - no care or thought about how it will impact society, American business, or the taxpayers - no idea, beyond the immediate glow of self praise, what the full impacts of your government domination plan will realize.
Anna Eshoo reminds me of my high-school class president: "And if you vote for me, I'll make sure you can buy soda from the Pepsi machine in the teacher's lounge!"
What do you think existing ISPs are gonig to do when suddenly their market is penetrated by a government-mandated "Free" service?? Oh sure... this'll be good for job, the economy, and my quality of service... SURE.....
The data system is currently like that. There are so many networks, all owned by different companies. I can go to Starbucks and use a T-Mobile account, but when I go across the street to the basketball arena I need an AT&T account, and both are separate from the time warner account I have at home. It's a mess. In this case a national network would just be more efficient. And what's the difference whether you pay taxes or a monthly bill to get your service? Yes the gov't tends to be less efficient, but the savings gained by consolidation would offset if not surpass that.
It's shame the gov't missed the boat with the 700 MHz spectrum. This is too little, too late, and wireless in the 2 GHz range is much more expensive and much less efficient to operate.
US corporations are greed based. Which is why we are lagging behind in tech categories, including connectivity.
This could have far reaching implications and benefits for everyone. Not shortsighted greed based ideas that benefit a few people at the expense of everyone.
So if whichever company buys this spectrum can provide the service without incurring charges themselves why can't current inet providers do the same? I guess they are all just telling us that their computers, lines, and employees cost them money so they can charge us. What an insidious scandal!
Wait...what was that? You say that equipment and personnel DO cost money? So...um...how can this service be provided for free? Ah. I get it. The government that is pushing for this must be paying the overhead. So why doesn't the government just buy the sectrum and administer it themselves? If they are paying for the infrastructure and other costs anyway...
So as a condition of buying the whole cake you are required to give one slice away free, the rest you can charge as you want. If you don't like it, I'd suggest not bidding on the cake at all. If no one likes it the cake won't sell and terms will have to be modified if offered for a second auction.
There's lots of money in ads. Even enough to pay for infrastructure.
This is just more amusement from a state that provides an endless stream of amusement. Thanks Cal.!!!
Families are Family friendly. Free speech is not Family Friendly and it does not need to be.
Of course the politician and advisors know nothing about long-term maintenance, or about REQUIRING filtering from the segment of society that will be using this service (those who cannot afford to pay for broadband unfettered by filters).
I would not worry too much about this proposal. It will not survive First Amendment tests, even if passed and signed by the sitting prez.
There will be plenty of space for whoever buys it to profit, the fact that they will actually be forced to do something of huge benefit to everyone is a bonus.
The greed model is what got us to the horrible mess we are in today. More greed driven ideas will not help us.
Why do other countries have much better connectivity for example? Because in other countries, corporations also have an obligation to serve their communities.
That is why the US is failing.
It's supposed to be family oriented.
People who want smut can buy their internet from current ISPs.
* People will at first flock to it and run broadband intensive applications....
*Cell phone companies will lobby to impose various caps so it doesn't eat into their profits...
* Regular U.S. corporate-corruption will cause the company to go broke at some point...
* The U.S. government will take tax payer money and try to bail out the company...
* Then some private company will buy-up the assets cheap and take it private after it's been built with tax payer dollars...
i see lots of biases here - especially, the "California is a joke" theme. i guess silicon valley's accomplishments since the days of Dave Hewlett and Dave Packard don't hold much water to this reader's high standards for 'serious business models.' and if every time someone approached a VC (venture capitalist) with a "laughable" idea was shot down with prejudice in ways that this commenter finds "laughable", we'd probably not have Yahoo, Google, Hotmail, FaceBook, MySpace, and numerous others. I am sure glad that I have Google search, Google Maps, FaceBook, free email, free photo sharing apps, and other stuff that are paid for by "someone" other than me (the user). Sure, there is a failure rate. If we all watched and be judgmental, and never took swing, our batting average would be pretty pathetic.
Korea, Japan, China, Singapore, and European Union countries have geography on their side - population density. Advanced DSL technologies and FTTH are doable because they do not have the same geographic mass that we do in the US.
So if the govt does not provide incentives, when do we think the rural communities will reap the benefits that we do from online education, online entertainment, online shopping, electronic communications, and other benefits of being connected? Since when did cable run infrastructure to try to connect 20 homes rural Mississippi? How long will that pay-back take? Ask yourself how those 20 homes got telephone connectivity in the first place.
And we're talking about WiMax here, not wifi. It is licensed spectrum that we are talking about. Imagine the nomadic, mobility, and untethered capabilities that you can enjoy. Does anyone here appreciate their Blackberry or other push email apps running on their cell-phones? Imagine all of the apps you can run on a laptop that is connected anywhere in the US - even if it is at 200kbps. Hell, I'd be happy with the free service until I get home to by 'shared' broadband service.
Why do they keep insisting on asking people who can be predicted to oppose the idea?
The companies in his "group" are free to bid on the spectrum like everyone else. If his members don't like the conditions, they are also free not to bid.
People come before profits.
This is quite different, using more cellular technology where a tower can cover many many homes/blocks.
-
by C_C_C_
October 25, 2008 8:23 PM PDT
- I can understand the government trying to put some regulations on this idea. It probably needs to to curb some of the garbage that is already on the net. I think everyone has forgotten the deregulation of the telephone co's. As a result, we have ATT and verison owning just about all the telephone service in the country. Along with this we have had higher prices to pay for the same service we have had for years on end. We still do not have any broadband in mostly all of the rural areas. The TelCo's are not doing anything about it so maybe we can get it this way. The only trouble with it interfearing with the cell providers is their greed to have more profits and not wanting anyone to get anything they didn't pay for.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(45 Comments)