 | | N2H2 Sounds like N2H2 will be getting a nice deal with an ISP. A filter that blocks what the FCC wants and then more with really no ways around it.
Smart! | |
|
2 edits |  Free WiFi would look like this
Now these are great for 5 year olds, but the free part of this nationwide system will be worthless for 90% of the users. So what M2Z is asking for is FREE spectrum so they can sell their 3 mbps tier at $30/mo that can show porn, news, social sites, etc. that aren't appropriate for 5 yr olds.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
 | bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD | Re: Free WiFi would look like this said by fAcEtIOUs:So what M2Z is asking for is FREE spectrum so they can sell their 3 mbps tier at $30/mo that can show porn. Not FREE. M2Z would pay the government 5% of their revenue. So instead of getting one payment up front the government would be getting recurring revenue as long as the company stays in business. | |
|
| |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Free WiFi would look like this said by bbenso1:said by fAcEtIOUs:So what M2Z is asking for is FREE spectrum so they can sell their 3 mbps tier at $30/mo that can show porn. Not FREE. M2Z would pay the government 5% of their revenue. So instead of getting one payment up front the government would be getting recurring revenue as long as the company stays in business. Yes free. If they don't make money (or use creative accounting to hide it) they don't pay the Government a dime.
I am all for unseating the incumbents and releasing their stranglehold on the last mile, but this is a terrible use of the spectrum. I have to agree with the FCC on this one for once. | |
|
| | | bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD | Re: Free WiFi would look like this said by Matt:said by bbenso1:said by fAcEtIOUs:So what M2Z is asking for is FREE spectrum so they can sell their 3 mbps tier at $30/mo that can show porn. Not FREE. M2Z would pay the government 5% of their revenue. So instead of getting one payment up front the government would be getting recurring revenue as long as the company stays in business. Yes free. If they don't make money (or use creative accounting to hide it) they don't pay the Government a dime. Incorrect. 5% of REVENUE, not 5% of PROFIT. If they bring in $1 million and have operating costs of $2 million they would still owe the government 5% of that $1 million even though they actually made no money.
So, the only way that the government would see no money from this deal would be if M2Z had absolutely zero income. If that were the case I can guarantee that the company wouldn't be around for long and then the government would get their spectrum back. | |
|
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Free WiFi would look like this said by bbenso1:Incorrect. 5% of REVENUE, not 5% of PROFIT. If they bring in $1 million and have operating costs of $2 million they would still owe the government 5% of that $1 million even though they actually made no money. So, the only way that the government would see no money from this deal would be if M2Z had absolutely zero income. If that were the case I can guarantee that the company wouldn't be around for long and then the government would get their spectrum back. Did you read the filing? This only applies to their "Premium Offering" subscription service. And they "may" offer it. It doesn't say they HAVE to. They can plaster the free service ads or any number of creative schemes to make money that is exempt and never offer a premium service. | |
|
| MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | That is exactly what I was thinking Tk.
Not to mention, 10 years to build out 3Mbps? 10 years ago most of us were still on DIAL-UP! 3Mbps will be the equivalent of dial-up by then, not to mention 384Kbps. | |
|
| | Snowball's chance... There is no way any operator (incumbent or otherwise) will be able to build out a new network covering 95% the nation (no idea if this is based on population or area) within 10 years, particularly one that is going to provide a free service.
I predict that this will be another Nextwave-like debacle: They'll get the license and sit on it until the FCC complains and tries to revoke it. Then the courts will get involved and somehow AT&T or Verizon will ultimately end up with the license after paying the original licensee a ton of money.
This will go the way of free city-wide WIFI networks.
Great work if you can get it. | |
|
| Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | Re: Snowball's chance... My problem with this:
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming most likely won't be covered AT ALL.
This should include an additional provision such as 80% of each state's population being covered. (which wouldn't be at all difficult in Montana - 10-15 sites with the same coverage as a cell tower would do the trick probably) | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| they could build it out. But who is going to pay for 3Mbps of service in 10 years? especially for $30? i know i'm not!
The thing is that they're timeline for speeds being realized over the 10years is not what the country needs to see. Talk about rolling back the times on speeds this is it.
Plus they'd have to find someone that will actually build the equipment for them to use and then deploy it, test it, and then open it up for use. Unless the "free" service will be the beta testing.
They should just purchase WiMax Lite licenses and start building out that way. show the FCC that they can actually do something to deserve this. | |
|
 Hmmm
@wideopenwest.com | Savvy 5 year olds? What 5 year old owns a laptop?
Shouldn't it be more like TV? PG-13 at least or something? | |
|
|
|
