FCC ponders auction for free wireless service

The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new plan that would require winners of an upcoming spectrum auction to provide free wireless Internet services.

The FCC could soon vote on a plan to auction off 25 megahertz of spectrum in the 2155MHz band of spectrum. As part of its plan, the commission would require the winner of those licenses to provide some free wireless Internet service.

The FCC sees the plan as a way to provide broadband Internet service to millions of Americans who either can't afford or don't want to pay for high-speed Internet access. Few details are known about what exactly the FCC is proposing, but word has it that it's similar to a plan proposed by M2Z Networks in 2006.

Under that plan, the FCC would give the company access to spectrum for free. The company would build the network and fund the service through advertising. As part of the proposal, M2Z planned to give the FCC 5 percent of its gross revenue from the service.

But the FCC didn't like that proposal, especially the part about giving spectrum away for free. So it's come up with its own proposal. Instead of giving away free spectrum licenses, it will auction the spectrum to the highest bidder and require the winning bidder to offer service on some its spectrum for free. The FCC will also require that the free service have content filtering in place to ensure that minors are not able to access adult Web sites.

Wireless service providers have traditionally opposed any stipulations imposed on wireless spectrum auctions. And the CTIA, the trade organization representing the industry, has already filed comments with the commission urging it not to put requirements on the spectrum.

"The commission should not require licensees to meet specific conditions, such as pricing plans, minimum data rates or content filtering," the CTIA wrote in a filing.

While the FCC's plan might be well-intended, I think it's unlikely that any company would spend the millions or even billions of dollars necessary to buy the spectrum, especially considering that it will take even more money to build and operate the network.

The advertising supported model sounds good on paper. But so far, it hasn't been proven to work. In fact, the failed citywide Wi-Fi projects all over the country have already proven that free wireless services don't work. EarthLink planned to only give some of its service away for free in some cities like San Francisco. But it offered "cheap" broadband in other cities. MetroFi built its whole business model on offering free Wi-Fi supported by advertising revenue.

EarthLink has since canceled plans to build its San Francisco network and now its dismantling networks in other cities, such as Philadelphia and New Orleans. Meanwhile, MetroFi is also looking for a way out of its citywide Wi-Fi business.

These companies weren't able to make the free model or even the inexpensive broadband model work, because networks are expensive to build and maintain. And unlike the bidders in this auction, these companies didn't have to pay for the spectrum they used to build the networks. I can't imagine many companies willing to make that kind of investment if they're required to offer even some of their service for free.

For this reason, I think it would be difficult for the FCC to find a bidder willing to take on the stipulations. This is exactly what happened in the most recent 700MHz spectrum auction. The FCC required bidders on the "D Block" of licenses to set aside a portion of that spectrum for public safety use. The only company even interested in the spectrum went out of business before the auction began, because it was unable to secure the necessary funding. In the end, the minimum bid on these licenses was never met, and the FCC is still trying to figure out how to rewrite the rules to attract bidders.

That said, the FCC has had some success in setting rules for new spectrum auctions. In the same 700MHz spectrum auction, the FCC required the winner of the C-Block licenses to build a network using this spectrum that is open to all devices and applications. Verizon Communications ended up paying $4.6 billion for the spectrum.

So in all fairness, the FCC may succeed in this endeavor. But ultimately, the success of this new plan will come down to whether or not the winning bidder will be able to come up with a business model that actually allows companies bidding on this spectrum to make money.

[nothardly]

{who either can't afford or don't want to pay for high-speed Internet access]

Doesn't that cover just about everyone?

[gerrrg]

MetroFi's problems were because they created a WiFi cloud full of holes. Then they proceeded to expand that perforated cloud, all the while telling people that it was THEIR fault for not getting a connection: Buy a directional antenna. Funny thing is...I can actually get onto other networks with half the signal strength of MetroFi's. Heck, I can be standing under their antenna and 30 seconds later, still be unable to connect using my PDA. They couldn't accomplish what they promised in a signed contract with the City, so now it's goodbye.

[chash360]

Once again the greed is outweighing common sense. The FCC does not need to sell the spectrum, it can make money from the licensing and regulation at the device level. The stipulations on the C-Block of the 700MHz auction did not provide end users with any benefits. You will still have to pay Verizon to use it, regardless of your device or protocol.

What we are demanding is open free spectrum, to create a device only, wireless network. You buy the device, and you have free communications on the network. This is easily accomplished if the FCC sets the specification for the devices and the spectrum, and charges the device OEMs for compliance certification (the permission to sell a particular device that uses the spectrum). There is no network to maintain, no infrastructure to implement. You have a device specification which includes location awareness (GPS Addressing) which is always unique, and route traffic based upon physical realtime location. No Routing tables, or DNS lookups, etc required. If the specification requires each 'hub' device has to have the capacity to route many more times the bandwidth than the single end user of a portable device uses, we will never outgrow it, more hubs=more network bandwidth. The greater density of hubs and devices present, means you lower signal power (to shorter ranges) and reuse frequencies more often. Yes this is a mesh network idea, that will work. To provide dedicated services like phone service, you buy a 'hub' unit that you install at home, you 'pair' your handset device, PDA, Laptop, etc. to this hub, and it keeps track of all your portable devices whereever you go, so that it can reach you wherever you are. If they want to ensure adult content is protected then they can easily specify a content rating code in the device connection protocol, and require all devices implement a content rating filter system so that the end user can determine what is appropriate. This can easily be enforced because any commecial business could be held liable for not flagging their public content appropriately (Much like TV ratings now) BTW: All of this technology is in the public domain.

OEMs already have to pay to license wireless devices, this is nothing new. They would be happy to know they could just sell lots of devices, and not have to worry if 'service providers' would carry them, because the devices provide the service. The FCC setting the standards for power spectrum usage, and basic routing and connection protocols is all that is needed, they do not even need to control content protocols, we can reuse many of the free protocols developed for the Internet. If included is a power-spectrum-protocol table and updating system, the FCC could then manage spectrum usage dynamically in near real-time through updates and not have to do these spectrum auctions and management activities that cost the tax payers millions. We could then expand it to more frequencies as time goes on.

If our forefathers had anything other than speech and print at the time, do you think for one second they would not have just said the people have the right to 'freedom of communication'?

[wduff2]

Yes!

Everyone, please don't sit back and let giant corporations steal spectrum from us again! If enough people call and write the FCC to tell them that we want a free, ubiquitous, open internet, we can set the agenda!

As for the "interference" complaint, corporate radio stations put up the same argument back when the FCC tried to license LPFM stations across the nation (see: http://www.radioworld.com/article/article/9016).

This is our country, this is our government. We can demand an free, ubiquitous, and open internet!

How to Contact the FCC:

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail
Chairman Kevin J. Martin: [e-mail]
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: [e-mail]
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: [e-mail]
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: [e-mail]
Commissioner Robert McDowell: [e-mail]

To Obtain Information via E-mail or On-line Form
General information, comments & inquiries: [e-mail]
Complaints: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
Freedom of Information Act requests: [e-mail]
Comments on FCC Internet services: [e-mail]
Elections & political candidate matters: [e-mail]

[jamshid]

Cool. The internet is the best way for a government to communicate with and service the people. Free or subsidized internet access is a valuable and affordable service to provide. Remember we're leasing a limited natural resource (spectrum) from which companies will make a ton of money (ads, sales). Won't someone think of the children? They need internet access to learn and grow in today's world.