FCC seeking comment on free wireless auction

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday formalized its plans to auction off a section of wireless spectrum to buyers who promise to provide free Internet service that filters out pornography and other inappropriate content, and offers open access to third-party devices and applications.

The agency is seeking public comment on the plan details, of which are posted here. Winning bidders of the 25 megahertz of spectrum in the 2155MHz band would also be required to provide free wireless coverage to at least half of the United States within four years, and to at least 95 percent of the population by the end of the 10-year license, according to Reuters and the FCC posting.

The plan could face opposition from wireless service providers, who have traditionally opposed any stipulations imposed on wireless spectrum auctions. CTIA, the trade organization representing the industry, has already filed comments with the commission urging it not to put requirements on the spectrum.

Given that free wireless Internet business models have yet to be proven successful, it could prove challenging for the FCC to find bidders willing to take on the above stipulations.

[Nocturnex]

what happened to the internet is for porn?

who the hell would use a pornless internet?

[aka_tripleB]

I would have to say, if no one wants to offer free wireless coverage, no one gets the spectrum. Especially if they want it for commercial applications.

[EEPro]

FCC = Federal Communist Communications?

[The_Decider]

Nice reasoning idiot. Offering up something that belongs to the people anyway with the requirement that a small portion of the bandwidth is set aside for the public is not in any way communistic. That you would characterize it as such shows how clueless you are.

[expatincebu]

What exactly is "pornography and other inappropriate content"? That is incredibly subjective. From my perspective, any proselytizing religious information is inappropriate and should be filtered, whereas nude photographs of men and women, including their genitalia is high art and should certainly be allowed.

[Lerianis]

I have to agree. Any religious information should be banned from the internet, while I have no problem with 'pornography' being viewed by anyone, even children.

People keep on saying it will 'warp' children.... yeah, warp them into thinking that sex is normal and good (which it is) and they will reject the pseudo-morality of today.

[jcoady_dotmac]

@expatincebu

Wow, you got that right. The world is so infested with religion - religions that would have us believe that some of the most beautiful images imaginable are "sinful" and therefore "inappropriate content". But we are expected to put up with their endless ravings. Shssss.

[gerrrg]

The Feds should just set up a non-profit for the sole purpose of building out a wireless network that then sells access to ISPs (who then resell back to the public or use ad-based models to provide free access), and then plow that money back into the network to maintain and upgrade. Or they should just stay out of the business of being socialists.

[The_Decider]

LOL another idiot. I guess you forgot that the airways belong to the people. Once the offer is made formally you will see many corporations bid on it because there is still a large chunk of the band that is open to commercial activity.

[The_Decider]

The restrictions are unconstitutional but this idea is sound. It is rare in the Bush regime that there is any concern for the citizens. Luckily our little dictator is on his way out and programs like this can happen even more. The idiotic neo-cons have no problem with corporate welfare and somehow object to helping real people with real problems. Oddly these evil people consider themselves Christians while ignoring the very basis of the faith.

[42istheanswer]

Anything that sounds remotely beneficial to the citizen is most certainly doomed to fail. Where's the incentive for the fat greedy ****'s to bilk their minions and keep them groveling for scraps around the dog bowl?

[ramiso]

The FCC and anyone who thinks that this model is okay does not understand our Constitutional based society. If you want to watch porn have at it, if you want to not watch porn then good for you. One thing if certain, Americans need to wake up and smell the coffee.

All of you who blame Bush for all you problems just goes to show that you not adept in things constitutional and how they great document was formed and on what basis it was formed.

We are not a democracy, we are a federalist based constitutional republic. This means that we all have the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to practice our faith whatever that might be without being harassed or made light of.

I am proud of my country and those who aren't are just ignorant and foolish.

[chlimouj]

ramiso: Everything comes at a cost. The cost of free Internet is no porn. The cost of free porn is paid Internet access. The idea that anything and everything should always be unrestricted is ridiculous. Hell, a free market economy goes out of its way to make restrictions out of thin air. Take Windows for example... XP Pro costs twice as much as XP Home, but all they did was go out of their way to disable features in XP Home to make it seem like a different product. I would love to hear your argument how free wireless with no porn violates the Constitution. I mean, how could anyone be so winy when an optional service is put in place? Let's put it this way... If FedEx one day said that they were starting a new subsidiary that would send rectangular boxes for free, does that violate the Constitution? It doesn't stop you from paying to send a square box, just like you had been doing before? Sure, it might make the cost of your square box shipment go up to cover their extra overhead, but they have a right to change their pricing.... you don't have a right to use their service, it's a privilege.

[elezhbeth32]

y chlimouj June 22, 2008 12:58 PM PDT
ramiso: Everything comes at a cost. The cost of free Internet is no porn. The cost of free porn is paid Internet access. The idea that anything and everything should always be unrestricted is ridiculous. Hell, a free market economy goes out of its way to make restrictions out of thin air. Take Windows for example... XP Pro costs twice as much as XP Home, but all they did was go out of their way to disable features in XP Home to make it seem like a different product. I would love to hear your argument how free wireless with no porn violates the Constitution. I mean, how could anyone be so winy when an optional service is put in place? Let's put it this way... If FedEx one day said that they were starting a new subsidiary that would send rectangular boxes for free, does that violate the Constitution? It doesn't stop you from paying to send a square box, just like you had been doing before? Sure, it might make the cost of your square box shipment go up to cover their extra overhead, but they have a right to change their pricing.... you don't have a right to use their service, it's a privilege

[elezhbeth32]

have to agree. Any religious information should be banned from the internet, while I have no problem with 'pornography' being viewed by anyone, even children.

People keep on saying it will 'warp' children.... yeah, warp them into thinking that sex is normal and good (which it is) and they will reject the pseudo-morality of today