dslreports logo
 story category
FCC To Vote On Free National Wireless Broadband
Will visit reconstituted M2Z plan on December 18
The Wall Street Journal says the FCC will vote on whether or not to support a plan for a free national wireless broadband network on December 18. The plan involves auctioning off spectrum in the AWS-3 (2155-2180 MHz) band, with the condition that whoever buys it must deploy at least 768kbps wireless to 95% of the country in ten years time. While that certainly sounds great, it's not likely to ever see the light of day. The first barrier will be incumbents who don't want the added competition and/or want the spectrum for themselves -- without conditions:
quote:
"Auctions without price or product mandates create a level playing field. Restrictions and conditions on spectrum use, however well intentioned, are not the most effective or efficient way to encourage development of services or to assist underserved areas," stated Baker, acting head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in a Nov. 18 letter to Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas.). "Subject to appropriate government rules to prevent harmful interference, government should rely on market forces to determine the best use of spectrum."
T-Mobile is considering suing to scrap the project -- claiming the technology causes interference -- despite using the same Time Division Duplex technology overseas with no problems. FCC tests also show no interference problem. If the project makes it past an FCC vote and incumbent legal assault (which would be surprising), civil rights groups also don't like the fact that attached conditions require the network use smut-filters -- FCC Kevin Martin's nod toward the family values groups he'll need in a post-FCC North Carolina political career.
view:
topics flat nest 

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 edit

baineschile

Premium Member

Will Vote...

And Will Fail. Government taking over broadband will saturate it and deliver a lower quality product than if in the hands of private companies.

Plus, 768k in 10 years!??!?! Comcast and Verizon have 50,000k hsi THIS YEAR. what will the point be then?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Will Vote...

said by baineschile:

And Will Fail. Government taking over broadband will saturate it and deliver a lower quality product than if in the hands of private companies.

Plus, 768k in 10 years!??!?! Comcast and Verizon have 50,000k hsi THIS YEAR. what will the point be then?
so are you saying that the private sector has produced a good product? this nationwide broadband is not meant to replace the comcasts and verizons or at&t's out there. i know my grandma would love to get something like this. think about it. it may be slow but it could easily replace the remaining dialup users.

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
USA

DrModem

Premium Member

Re: Will Vote...

Indeed. This would be a great replacement for my 26k.

Glaice
Brutal Video Vault
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY

Glaice

Premium Member

Re: Will Vote...

Does this mean there will be more spamming, scammers, typhoid marys and people who just don't give a shit.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

baineschile to ArrayList

Premium Member

to ArrayList
Although there are some problems with the major ISPs, they still have done a far superior job than a government run agency would have.

Everyone has a service outage once in a while; poor weather, wiring, network upgrades, etc. Would government run broadband work any better?
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT

voipdabbler to baineschile

Member

to baineschile
The vote is not about the government running it--it's about auctioning this bandwith of spectrum with conditions imposed on the buyer. Problem I see is there isn't enough oversight on the spectrum already sold off to the private sector. That's why the last data published on how many of the 425 Rural Service Areas in the cellular market show fewer than 50 percent (specifically 150) actually have any cellular service. Communication infrastructure is a critical national security asset and the government needs to start overseeing the private sector that's given the privilege of operating it--remember all the complaints and concerns about cellular failure during 9/11. If they don't comply with government imposed conditions, then they need to be stripped of their license and fined.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 recommendation

Sammer

Member

Re: Will Vote...

said by voipdabbler:

Problem I see is there isn't enough oversight on the spectrum already sold off to the private sector. That's why the last data published on how many of the 425 Rural Service Areas in the cellular market show fewer than 50 percent (specifically 150) actually have any cellular service.
A condition to provide 768 Mbps service to 275 RSAs first at a reasonable price (maybe $30 / month maximum) would make sense. Conditions such as free internet service to 95% of the country in 10 years with smut filters are just stupid.

Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY

Millenniumle

Member

Hope it goes through

At 786k I don't think suppliers have much to concern themselves with. The demand for higher speed should be sufficient.

I'd love it. I don't need more than 786 for reading. Nor do I need to pay $50 every month for the pleasure. Somehow I wonder how it would ever be kept from being absolutely drowned with traffic though. I'm sure all the major carriers would do their part to keep it swamped too.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: Hope it goes through

said by Millenniumle:

Somehow I wonder how it would ever be kept from being absolutely drowned with traffic though. I'm sure all the major carriers would do their part to keep it swamped too.
All the carriers will have to do is make sure some of the pr0n that's encrypted just enough to evade the smut filters gets through.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Please let this pass...

1. If mobile carriers think this is competition, they need to fix their horribly broken networks. In more sparsely populated areas I can pull 1.5 Mbit over EvDO no problem. T-Mobile HSDPA will be similar in speed...and LTE is much, MUCH faster...

2. This will bring people normally limited to dialup/sat/lo-fi WiSPs into true, reasonably fast, inexpensive broadband access.

3. This isn't meant to compete with DSL/cable. DSL can provide service for cheap with no ads, cable can provide service at lightning speed. This is a new market sector.

4. Deployment of such a network would allow more people to move into the broadband mainstream. The result? More use for web apps, which is a very good thing. Web apps meaning basically anything serious online 9aside from surfing forums).

Caveat: I don't want the government taking over the project if it fails. They have enough to worry about. OTOH they could allow for secured large loans to cover equipment costs for deployment. That's a bit different...

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

1 edit

NetAdmin1

Member

Doublespeak

"Subject to appropriate government rules to prevent harmful interference, government should rely on market forces to determine the best use of spectrum."
Industry talking point doublespeak. It roughly translates to "We want to buy spectrum to lock out competition, but not be required to actually use it."

SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA

SHABAZZ

Member

25 MHz is hardly enough for broadband

If the government wants this to really work and not just play lip service they need to allocate at least 60 MHz. Wimax and LTE uses 10 MHZ per channel so who ever tries to launch this will not be able to use the best options available.
probboy
join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA

probboy

Member

Why not 50Mbps and 100% coverage 15 seconds after approval?

Seriously, if anyone thinks someone can provide free service to 95% of the country (unclear whether this is based on population or area--it makes a huge difference as a very large number of people in this country are concentrated in a relatively small area) within 10 years of being granted a license, you've got to have your head examined.

IIRC, AT&T's cellular network covers approximately 270 million POPs (which is roughly but not exactly people) and this is 25 years after the network started being deployed!

My prediction: this plan will be approved and then the "let's make a deal"ing will begin. We can't afford to cover 95% of the population within 10 years, so can we cover 50% (which probably isn't an area much larger than I-95 from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA). So this will do nothing for rural users. Or maybe they'll blow their nugget getting NYC and LA online only to run out of money before servicing a single rural country.

If the government was smart, they'd make it a condition of the license that rural areas without other service were put online first. Or, for financial feasibility, pair rural areas and urban areas--you only get to service the latter if you service the former.

odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL

odreian615

Member

Smut filter

What the hell they think the internet is about

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven

Member

Sweet!

Finally, an alternative to Dialup!

I will be glad when this gets approved. Especially the ranchers out here that CAN'T get broadband, except by satellite (ahh, who loves being FAP'd to death?).

Whoever bitches about "Why not faster?", quit whining. It's 95% coverage and it's free. For "light" web surfing, it's perfect. For the people who DL massive files and use a ton of bandwidth (like me), you need something wired. I'd be willing to pay for my 15mbps feed and have free 768kbps for backup.

All I can say is "When do they go live?"

yolarry
join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV

yolarry

Member

Re: Sweet!

but it will be pornless.

I take FAP instead of Porn.
or have both internetz
yolarry

yolarry

Member

Re: Sweet!

I mean I take FAP than Pornless

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

1 edit

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Nice.

All the people whining can stop and think about it.

Free internet for your laptop anywhere. Camping, trips, etc.

Try and think of this as free backup internet anywhere your wired or 4g/3g/2g coverage is not.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

wow

So you guys rather have nothing then something. Id rather have a horrible free wireless connection then none at all.

Hpower
join:2000-06-08
Canyon Country, CA

1 edit

Hpower

Member

yea....great idea...not

haha I can only imagine trying to get a signal anywhere...and imagine the security risk of having the entire county be infected with viruses that will spread like crazy. Now I wonder what they would say to that.