  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ | Profitability How would building a free national wireless network be profitable to any company who does it? | |
|
 | | | Re: Profitability get cash or tax breaks or etc from the government, and after 10 years discover the plan is not finished... | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by NickD:How would building a free national wireless network be profitable to any company who does it? Only 25% of the spectrum would be for the free internet service. The remaining 75% would be available for the winner to use as they see fit in for-profit endeavors.
One part of the plan is to also make the free internet piece(25%) free of porn thru an ISP controlled filter process. The porn free filter can be opt-out for those who want their porn. But they would have to prove who they are to opt-out.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Profitability great firewall of china satellite office?
I think it's safe to say this is the only case where NIMBY is valid. | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Romney2012:said by NickD:How would building a free national wireless network be profitable to any company who does it? Only 25% of the spectrum would be for the free internet service. The remaining 75% would be available for the winner to use as they see fit in for-profit endeavors. One part of the plan is to also make the free internet piece(25%) free of porn thru an ISP controlled filter process. The porn free filter can be opt-out for those who want their porn. But they would have to prove who they are to opt-out. Or they could just PAY for thier internet and it won't be an issue. | |
|
| | | Only the slowest speed would be free, you would pay for the faster tiers and for unfiltered access. | |
|
| | MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Profitability That would actually work then.
You could apply the same broadcast rules for "public" access.
If you decide to pay for it, you can get the unfiltered access. | |
|
| | | | sweet, free U-Verse!  | |
|
| | Free service If the government (FCC) desires free service, let them build it. | |
|
Test99Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
kudos:1 | Stranger than Fiction The government proposes to make a profit by auctioning off spectrum. The successful bidder is required to pay the government for the spectrum and then provide free service...
You couldn't make this stuff up.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Stranger than Fiction said by Test99:The government proposes to make a profit by auctioning off spectrum. The successful bidder is required to pay the government for the spectrum and then provide free service... You couldn't make this stuff up. you should really try READING the details. | |
|
| | Test99Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Stranger than Fiction If you want me to read the details, please tell me where to find them.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
|
| | Watered down... I expect the free Internet service will be about as useful as free broadcast TV is entertaining. Some things are actually worth what you pay for them. | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Watered down... I dropped cable a few years ago. There is actually quite a bit of stuff on OTA. PBS here has 4 channels. I get CBS,NBC,ABC,Fox,WB(or whatever they call it now), a weather channel, and five other stations. PBS and all the big names are all in digital. I find it a FAR better value than what I was paying for cable. My digital channels also look much better than my neighbors digital cable(channel to channel). | |
|
| | | | Re: Watered down... said by Lazlow:"OTA ... [is] a FAR better value than ... cable." I totally agree with that. | |
|
|  XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Plenty of shows on free TV are worth watching.
Lost, House, CSI, etc. | |
|
| | | | Re: Watered down... I don't think so, but to each his own (or her own).
And it's not really "free" TV--you pay more for every product you buy so manufacturers and advertisers and pay for all of those commercials (especially the ones during professional sports programs: where do think those multi-million dollar pro athlete salaries come from? ...your pocket). | |
|
| | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Watered down... The majority of cable channels also have commercials. So if you do not consider OTA free(which I can see) then you are paying twice for cable. | |
|
bac522
join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH | Goverment and free...bad combination. I'm trouble when the anything the government wants to do is has the word "free" attached to it. Capitalism is democracy's greatest attributes but when you start to require that certain things be provided for free doesn't this lend to a socialist mentality??? This has nothing but cluster f*ck written all over it...I really hope major changes come at the FCC after the election! | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Goverment and free...bad combination. I look at this just like OTA TV. It has worked reasonably well.
If I recall correctly, the FCC appointments are for 6 years, so even after the election it will be a couple of years before anything changes. | |
|
|
|
