FCC To Vote On Free National Wireless BroadbandWill visit reconstituted M2Z plan on December 18 ( old news - 11:55AM Monday Dec 01 2008) tags: fcc · business · wirelessThe 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: "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.
Related:- We Don't Need No Stinkin' DTV Delay
- 36% Of Stations Will Be All Digital Today
- NAB Sues FCC Over White Space Broadband
- DTV Coupon Program Back On Track
- New Docs Show FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws
- FCC To Shorten Landline Port Window
- Exploring FCC Warrantless Home Searches
- FCC To Investigate Exclusive Handset Deals
|
 |  | | | | Lineage
rawr?
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | Re: Will Vote... Indeed. This would be a great replacement for my 26k. | |
| | | | | | | | | voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| 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
Pittsburgh, PA
| 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
| 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
Pittsburgh, PA
| 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. | |
| | 
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
1 edit | 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."
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. | |
| SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA | 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
| 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 | Smut filter What the hell they think the internet is about | |
| 
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
| 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?"
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo] | |
| | 
Binary
join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV | Re: Sweet! but it will be pornless. 
I take FAP instead of Porn.
or have both internetz | |
| | |
Binary
join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV | Re: Sweet! I mean I take FAP than Pornless | |
| Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA
1 edit | 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
Lindenhurst, NY | wow So you guys rather have nothing then something. Id rather have a horrible free wireless connection then none at all. | |
| 
Hpower
Roflmao
join:2000-06-08
Burbank, CA
1 edit | 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.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
·
·
·