 SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium
join:2005-12-28
Hilo, HI | Free or Not ? If the FCC is going to get 5% of the revenue from a free service, it is pretty obvious why they are rejecting the deal.
--
Kaspersky will kill your DSLR access. Use Norton ! | |
|
 | 
Nightshade
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
edit:
August 31st, @05:33PM
| Re: Free or Not ? Uhh...you might want to read it a little more closer cause I do not see where M2Z Networks is providing free access in their business plan.
Here is a company willing to give money to the FCC for the privilege to use this bandwidth for their wireless broadband network. Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks. | |
|
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
August 31st, @06:04PM
| Re: Free or Not ? said by Nightshade  :Here is a company willing to give money to the FCC for the privilege to use this bandwidth for their wireless broadband network. Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks. It is not 5% of gross revenues, but only 5% of the revenues from the Premium Service they say they will offer »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···18725081 . The FCC would be wise to reject this pig in a poke. If M2Z never offers a premium service, but only offer services to safety organizations, there will be no gross revenues to take 5% of.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
edit:
August 31st, @09:03PM
| Re: Free or Not ? said by TK Junk Mail :The FCC would be wise to reject this pig in a poke. If M2Z never offers a premium service, but only offer services to safety organizations, there will be no gross revenues to take 5% of. And??? The FCC is not a for profit company, it's a government agency. So what if they don't make any money from this. Radio and Broadcast TV got their licenses for free in exchange for providing free services to the public. If this company wants to do the same with unused spectrum, there needs to be a better reason then the FCC won't make money off of it.? | |
|
| | | | 
UDontGetIt
@verizon.net | Re: Free or Not ? The FCC *IS* a for profit company. They are owned by the US government and they *DO* view you and yours as a *source of revenue*...
If you don't get that you don't get the FCC... | |
|
| | 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | "Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks."
Why not both?
| |
|
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Free or Not ? Seriously.
Just as long as we get a tersely worded pdf from the Democratic Commissioners whining that they don't like the rejection but voted for it anyway....I'm completely on board. | |
|
| | | 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
edit:
August 31st, @11:52PM
| I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
Wimpy
There is no Guarantee that this venture wold ever become or remain profitable. To me this is a sucker bet best avoided. | |
|
| | | SilentMan
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
| said by DHRacer :"Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks." Why not both? Yeah! I bet dollars for insults that if you can grab one of these commissioners and say "Quick! What's 1080P or MPEG4?" he will stare at you with a blank face. 
Hey! Wait a minuto! Maybe those could be tough questions for them. One fair question that none of them would answer right would be: "Can you format a floppy disk, sir?" To which they would reply back, "Say whaaaat?" | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Seems like both. If there's a technical reason not to allow them, I'd like to hear it. A better answer would be to give them a temporary, non-exclusive license, see how it works out.
I wouldn't sign up for that service unless I couldn't get landline, but I bet it would be useful in rural areas for people who work outside. | |
|
| | | 
kpfx
join:2005-10-28
Kerrville, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Free or Not ? I don't think any venture capitalist is going to front spending the big money deploying a proprietary wireless network on the premise of only having a temporary license.
Even doing this in a smaller controlled area as a test would be costly as this spectrum is not currently used for anything... and would thus require custom gear to be made. You then loose on the economies of scale when comparing to 802.11 Wirelss networks and even the new WiMax standards.
The bottom line is that spectrum licenses are expensive and very valuable. The FCC most likely thinks bigger fish to catch vs. this limited "5%" offer. | |
|
| | SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium
join:2005-12-28
Hilo, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Nightshade :Uhh...you might want to read it a little more closer cause I do not see where M2Z Networks is providing free access in their business plan. Oh you're right ! Duhh..
--
Kaspersky will kill your DSLR access. Use Norton ! | |
|
| |
|
|
| Hellrazor
join:2002-02-02
Abyss | Re: Forget that Wake up people... the more they have to pay the FCC, the more they will charge for the premium service. The more people have to pay, the less interest it will receive. Checks and balances... | |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
August 31st, @07:30PM
|  It's Official - FCC shoots down M2Z & NetfreeUS
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···61A2.pdf
Promoting broadband deployment and increasing penetration has been, and continues to be, one of my highest priorities. This spectrum has the potential to encourage the provision of a variety of broadband services and by a variety of different competitors in support of this goal. As several commenters have urged in recent days, the public interest is best served by considering fully the best use of this spectrum in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, rather than through forbearance petitions seeking exclusive use for a single entity filed by M2Z and NetfreeUS. The Commission received multiple proposals for innovative use of this spectrum apart from those proposed by M2Z and NetfreeUS, and they deserve due consideration as well. For example, many have suggested that we should auction this spectrum, while still others suggest that due to the high demand for this spectrum we should consider unlicensed use of the band. Each of these proposals has merit, and consideration of either would be inappropriately foreclosed by granting forbearance in this instance. We plan to issue this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shortly to address these issues and adopt flexible rules that will encourage the innovative use of this unique piece of spectrum. The official order: »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···61A1.pdf
The 2 Dems on the FCC agree with shooting down M2Z, but want the FCC to move faster on deciding what it does want to do with this 20mhz of spectrum. Martin is in no hurry.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···61A3.pdf
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···61A4.pdf
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Speakeasy
| Re: It's Official - FCC shoots down M2Z & NetfreeUS Hmmm, let's see, what will they ultimately pick... I'm going to go on the wild guess of auctioning the spectrum to the highest bidders.
I know, I know, silly of me to think that our government would be tempted more by reeling in more income to spend than actually doing something in the public interest.
Sometimes I can be so unexplicably pessimistic by assuming our government is more motivated by money than actual governance. I don't know why I could be so jaded...
KM | |
|
XBL2007
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | What a shock! The Cable and Bell giants couldn't survive against real competition. | |
|
unclebob
join:2003-05-09
Spiro, OK
| Just say no I am glad it is shot down for the following reasons:
1. Filtering...I'm ok with blocking the porno, but who determines indecent?
2. Targeted advertising. Their website isn't clear enough on just how they intend to deliver locally targetted information in searches.
3. Speed is detrimental, overall, to future broadband build outs. 6x faster than dial-up and meets the FCC definition of broadband, while much better than dial up for folks with NO broadband may cause less investment/higher prices for commercial broadband providers.
I wouldn't want to make a guess at how many people would drop their current ISP and go with a free one, but it would certainly cause commercial providers to have to make a choice between cutting R&D for higher class service or increasing rates to make up for loss in subscriber income.
Besides, I don't like the idea that the government favoring a company in this way could affect an entire market. | |
|
decin2002
Premium
join:2005-11-09
Belmont, NH | 3mb in ten years.... That's funny. Those speeds at that pricing is is a joke. Most likely it is someone looking for seed money so they bleed it dry, fold the company and retire early. | |
|
ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·Comcast Formerly ..
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·AT&T Southeast
| Advertising "Free" bandwidth is a relative term. If 50 percent of your use is consumed with online advertising to pay for the connection, then is it really worth your time to use it?
I bet M2Z would make more off of the 'free' 384k w/advertising, then they would off the premium service.
I would suspect that is why the FCC would rather auction it then take a cut of the premium revenue. Who's zoomin who? | |
|
|
|
|
FCC To Nix Free M2Z Broadband Plan Today?
Forget that