Comments on: FCC rejects free Wi-Fi start-up's spectrum plans

Regulators conclude it's not in the "public interest" to give one company an exclusive, 15-year license and plan to ask for public comment on how the fallow band should be used.

[nicmart]

Regulating freedom away

In the fashion Tocqueville predicted, the US has a unique and
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?

[luckymikerocks]

Um...

Did you just post that to pimp Ron Paul?

[solrosenberg]

Unlicensed is the way to go

If you want it to be fast and cheap, open the spectrum up to unlicensed use (cf. Wi-Fi). If you want it to be slow and expensive, auction the spectrum off (cf. 3G).

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.

[beubanks7507]

I don't Undersatand

Why we can't have a Citizen Band Wi-Fi spectrum about 100MHz
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.

[coolfilmaker]

3 megabytes per second is 24 megabits per second

I think you wrongly stated that the service would offer 3 megabytes per second when it almost surely was 3 megabits per second. There are eight bits in a byte. There is no wifi protocol except for 802.11n(which has yet to be finalized) that could actually provide that speed without having the antenna right next to you. It makes me wonder if the people who write these stories actually have a background in technology.

[raj4777]

802.11g IS 54 mbps

coolfilmaker,

802.11g is 54 mbps > 24 mbps (3 MBPS)

[HealthyElijah]

Righ on!!

As soon as I read 3 Megabytes per second I stopped reading and went to comment. I read your comment and said "Thank goodness" I am not the only one who caught that. I agree with you 100%. It makes me wonder if these people really know what they are talking about.

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!!

[AnneBroache]

Thanks

We did, in fact, mean to say 3 megabits per second. The story has been updated with that change.

[CNerd2025]

Since we're discussing ratios...

It turns out that 3 MB/s is actually over 25 Mbps, because 8 bits is 1 byte, 1024 bytes is 1 kilobyte and 1024 kilobytes is 1 megabyte. When you compute 8*1024*1024*3, you get 25,165,824 bits. Existing Wi-Fi standards do indeed cover this, as 802.11g is standardized at 56 Mbps, and some routers allow for 108 Mbps. The pre-802.11n routers out right now allow for the high speeds at much greater distances, so I don't see what the big stink is over.

[ScottRiqui]

Actually, no.

Like hard drive sizes, digital transmission speeds use the conventional, pre-digital definitions for "kilo", "mega", "giga", etcetera. 1 Mbps is 1,000,000 bits per second, not 1024^2.

[OneWithTech]

Oh NO...

...you did not say NET NEUTRALITY! And FREE means FREE! Not
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