M2Z Free National Wireless Broadband Plan Finally Dies
CTIA pleased you won't be getting 'slow' free 768 kbps service
You might recall that former FCC boss Kevin Martin and a company by the name of M2Z Networks had been cooking up a plan for a smut-censored free national wireless service
with a free wireless component. We had predicted the plan would never actually leave the ground
and that wound up being true, the project derailed by both politics and the fact that the plan itself while creative -- simply wasn't very good. After returning from the dead and being bounced around the halls of the FCC in slightly modified form, the FCC has finally dropped the effort completely
. M2Z sent Broadband Reports an e-mailed statement lamenting the decision:
"The FCC’s decision to delay the use of this valuable spectrum forgoes the consumer welfare and economic stimulus that would result from putting new spectrum into the marketplace," said John Muleta, CEO of M2Z Networks. A new nationwide broadband entrant that provided a free broadband service would have created tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs throughout the country while giving all Americans an equal opportunity to participate in the digital economy. Despite the spectrum crisis facing the U.S. as documented by the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, the AWS-3 spectrum will continue to lie fallow providing no economic value to American consumers."
Of course the plan always faced an uphill battle, and was heavily lobbied against by the wireless industry and their trade group the CTIA, who obviously didn't want the added competition for lower end customers. The CTIA sent us a statement saying they were "pleased" by the FCC's decision:
"As we had argued throughout the proceeding, a designer allocation auction that would be tailored for one company was not in the public’s interest, especially when that company was offering broadband service that is slow by even yesterday’s standards."
While 768 kbps is certainly slow, you probably would have a hard time beating the price, and M2Z did show a degree of vision in the plan's development. The plan itself was just always various degrees of bad, initially including a mandate that would require porn filters. Various versions were also based on seemingly unrealistic build out schedules, and the end result was never really going to offer particularly compelling speeds.
Re: Censored broadband
said by ISurfTooMuch:Um it's FREE what do you expect? If you want uncensored PAY for it. If I owned a business and I offered free wi-fi guess what, I can block certain websites if I want. And there's nothing you can do about it.
I'm aware of that. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the free product was to be censored.
Re: Censored broadband But, if you think about it, M2Z wasn't giving away this access for free. Essentially, the government would have been paying for it by not charging the company for the spectrum. That essentially means the government was buying this access for the public. If you look at it that way, then we, the taxpayers, would have ultimately paid for it, with the federal government being the middleman. In such a scenario, the government has an obligation to allow all legal content to be accessible. They should have demanded completely open access, not censored access.
Re: Censored broadband
said by ISurfTooMuch:It's not costing taxpayers anything. Do you realize how little the big broadcasters pay for thier spectrum to broadcast OTA TV? Practically nothing. Using your logic I guess you'd be all for killing off OTA TV so the government can sell it to Verizon and at&t so they can sell you $60 a month internet with 5 GB caps and $50 per GB overgages? This is your genius plan?
But, if you think about it, M2Z wasn't giving away this access for free. Essentially, the government would have been paying for it by not charging the company for the spectrum. That essentially means the government was buying this access for the public. If you look at it that way, then we, the taxpayers, would have ultimately paid for it, with the federal government being the middleman. In such a scenario, the government has an obligation to allow all legal content to be accessible. They should have demanded completely open access, not censored access.
said by hottboiinnc:Muni net access isn't free. it's paid for with bonds, and the users of the networks pay for those bonds with their subscriptions. It's a far more efficient means of deploying FTTH networks than having a duopoly leech money from a sector with decade-old technology.
nope because muni 'net access is not required for anyone so neither was this plan of M2Z.
If it wasn't for the stupid telco incumbents CWRU would be able to deploy a muni network in Cleveland at cost, enabling super-fast broadband for everyone, and it would be paid off within a decade.
said by 88615298:Hmm, if the government was involved so was tax money. You think the people at the FCC gave time for free??? said by kirk1233:
Good. We should not be spending tax dollars to give people free internet. We don't have the money and it takes business away from companies. Government can't provide everything for us...
Except ther weren't any tax dollars invovled. 50% chance you don't income taxes anyways.