FCC Cancels Free Internet Vote 257
Earlier this year we discussed a proposal from the FCC which would have required winning bidders for a portion of the wireless spectrum to use some of that bandwidth for free internet access. A vote for the plan was scheduled for next Thursday, but now the FCC has canceled those plans, facing "opposition from several top officials, wireless providers, and even civil rights groups." The internet access would have had some level of filtering, to which privacy groups took exception, and the Bush administration objected to forcing requirements on the winners of the spectrum auction. Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.
Its important to remember (Score:4, Insightful)
State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free nationwide internet access would be just like what happens with free nationwide health service.
At first it works fine and takes only a tiny bit of our taxes, then it grows in size (and squares in budget) as more and more people leave their paid service for the free one: after all, they're paying for it as well.
Then comes the time when almost the whole service is in the hands of the state. It takes up a huge budget and a proportionate bite of our taxes. It works so that nobody is left unconnected, but not much more. The state mandates what can it be used for and what not. It sets up any filter it likes (of course, filters will only grow). Privacy is nixed.
But, hey, almost everybody is hooked up to STATENET because nobody can compete with it. Only those that can afford paying double get a quality (and expensive) internet service.
Invalid arguments (imho) (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.
The DTV transition is almost complete. It will be a done deal on February 18 with a few minor issues to work-out during March, and then the FCC will be free to regulate the free internet service in channels 52-69 (the sold off spectrum).
>>>The internet access would have had some level of filtering, to which privacy groups took exception
So what? Free broadcast television has filtering as well, to bring it down to "PG" level, so I don't see what the issue is here. If you want raunchy stuff, you upgrade to pay TV or pay internet that is not censored.
>>>Bush administration objected to forcing requirements on the winners of the spectrum auction
I don't know why. We already force requirements onto other lessees of the PUBLIC spectrum, such as forcing tv stations to air educational programs, or cellphone operators to provide 911 tracing. The Corporations don't own the airwaves; they are merely leasing them from the People of the United States. If the collective "landlords" want to impose certain requirements for use of their property, so be it.
What a load of old FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
'Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.'
Why is this a 'major project'? And just what the heck has digital TV got to do with free wifi?
Also, from one of the links.
'Cell phone companies, in particular Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile, oppose the proposal, saying it will create interference, among other concerns. T-Mobile paid about $4.2 billion for an adjacent piece of spectrum.
The FCC has said its engineers examined the issue and found no technical interference issues.'
I suggest that the 'interference' that T-Mobile and others are worried about is the interference that this would create in them charging shitloads of money for internet access via their existing mobile networks.
Shame - apart from perhaps boosting the USA's dismal record in internet access, just image what widely available free Internet access could do. Think what GPS did...
I'm sure that ways could be found to ensure that network builders and operators could still get a decent ROI. Business users, for example, would still be prepared to pay extra for guaranteed voice/data coverage and added-value services.
Re:Invalid arguments (imho) (Score:3, Insightful)
> If the collective "landlords" want to impose certain requirements for use of their property, so be it.
I agree, though it's not clear that we landlords actually do want filtering. It is the cause of a vocal minority, one which happens to have the ear of the current President (who has considerable authority over the FCC). But we're getting a new President soon who may be less censorious.
Re:Invalid arguments (imho) (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to be that a major difference between TV and internet is that there's no good way to tell what "raunchy" means. At least with TV the set of content is so small that censorship can work somehow.
Also, using public airwaves to broadcast infomercials or Jerry Springer is as bad to me as clicking a goatse link. Such a waste!
On a semi-related note, I'll use this space to mention that I enjoy using my antenna more than extended cable because I get 3 channels of PBS instead of one. Those 3 channels of free television are far more interesting than the shit that was on cable, and they don't cost me an extra $60 per month, either.
The real fix for the filtering problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real fix for the filtering problem is not to filter, but to license access to the internet. To be completely honest, just about everything done on any public utility has rules and regulations and forces people to obtain licenses to use them. Want to drive on the road? Get a license. Want to be an electrician? Get a license. Want to check out library books? Get a license. If you abuse the public's trust, you get your license revoked. Unlike, say, blocking IPs of the RBN, content filtering will never work, socially or technically, so waste our time trying.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:4, Insightful)
Free nationwide internet access would be just like what happens with free nationwide health service.
Coverage for people who don't currently have any?
Re:The real fix for the filtering problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wanted to ammend my post by saying that none of this is a good idea, but if the government was in the business of good ideas, it would be better to license rather than filter. The former at least has a shot of succeeding to some degree.
Re:Its important to remember (Score:4, Insightful)
that the FCC is corrupt. Colin Powell's son was the head of it for a while, only because of his Dad's connections.
Okay. Do you have any evidence or reason to think Michael Powell was corrupt? The way you just stated that, it makes it sound like you think he's corrupt for no other reason than who his relatives are, which is just plain stupid...
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Because free internet occupying former channels 51 to 69 were to be paid by the *corporations* not the government. Just like free radio and free tv today."
But "free" radio and tv are not free, they are supported by ad revenue. There is little if any opportunity for the "free" internet provider to recoup the costs of providing the "free" internet service, it would essentially be a tax imposed on the provider by the government. Besides, 768k service will soon be of negligible value beyond simple text, IM or email, and the people the government thinks they're going to serve by offering this "service" will again be relegated to inferior connection speeds.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good reason why the broadband companies are opposed this. It will bankrupt them. Once everybody had free internet, the only people wh will want it to be faster are the torrenters...
...and anyone who wants to stream decent quality video, and anyone who wants unfiltered access, and anyone who wants to use decent quality VOIP applications, and anyone who wants to game with decent latencies, and anyone who wants good USENET access (yeah, all three of them)...
The point is that there are many reasons why you would want to pay for extra bandwidth. The point of the service is to offer basic service. There's no reason for it to grow beyond that. If you think it necessarily MUST grow beyond that, I have to ask why aren't food stamp programs paying for EVERYONE'S food now?
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
To be more accurate, I reworded your anti-UHC Troll:
Free nationwide internet access would be just like what happens with the current insurance industry health service.
At first it works fine and takes only a tiny bit of our pay cheques, then it grows in size (and squares in budget) as more and more people can't afford their current paid service: after all, they're paying for it as well.
Then comes the time when almost the whole service is in the hands of the financial conglomerates. It takes up a huge budget and a proportionate bite of our pay cheques. It works so that many people are left unconnected, but not much more. The insurance conglomerates mandate what can it be used for and what not. It sets up any filter it likes (of course, filters will only grow). Privacy is nixed.
But, hey, almost everybody is hooked up to an HMO because nobody can afford anything else. Only those that can afford paying double get a quality (and expensive) health insurance plan.
There; fixed that anti-UHC Troll for you.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>"free" radio and tv are not free, they are supported by ad revenue
i.e. Paid by corporations.
>>>There is little if any opportunity for the "free" internet provider to recoup the costs
Sure there is! You've never used NetZero or Juno I assume? They provide free internet through advertising along the top 20% of your screen. There's also the example of TV websites which provide free access to 24, CSI, Heroes, et cetera but pay for that cost through 30 second ads every ten minutes. The "free" internet would be paid in a similar fashion.
Re:Its important to remember (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's just, that it our experience, the likeliness for corruption in such a case is so near to 100%, that it is basically more efficient to expect it from the beginning.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. That happens when mandatory car/house/health insurance is imposed upon the citizens by the government. The insurance industry has a monopoly enforced by the government. Nothing new or free here.
Have a cold? Forget Excedrin, go to a doctor because it goes on the insurer (and back to you).
Also in the US health prices skyrocket because doctors ask for lots of things in order to cover their backs against (most times absurd) litigation. And, yes, 30% or more of their (huge) earnings go to litigation insurance.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean you pay $15 a month direct-billed, and another $50 or $60 a month in paycheck taxes to support the initial installation & ongoing administration. That's a total of around $70 a month in *real* cost to your wallet.
Governments love to hide the real costs.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:2, Insightful)
Compelling a provider to provide "free" service
In this case, nobody's compelling the provider to do anything. Don't like giving away free internet? Don't bid on the auction.
Not a single bit different than "don't like the job duties, don't take the job" or "don't like the contract, don't sign on the line"... except that in many of those cases, the people complaining didn't bother to read the fine print, then turn to the government to save them from their mistake. In this case the companies know exactly what would be demanded of them, and are turning to the government to save them from their fully informed choice.
If they don't like it, they shouldn't bid. If nobody likes it, then nobody will win the auction and the FCC would have to redo it.
Re:Its important to remember (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you suggesting Michael Powell was most likely an unwilling party to appointment through his Dad's connections, if he was appointed in that manner?
I don't see evidence of either being corrupt. As far as I know the suggestion he was appointed through Dad's connections is merely unfounded conjecture.
But if the corruption is the way someone becomes appointed to office, it most likely strongly suggests both apointer and appointee are corrupt in some manner, as well as the connections involved in appointing that person.
The difference is an uncorrupt official appointed based on true merit will be concentrating on doing their job correctly.
A corrupted official is distracted by the desire (and need) to do their job in a manner that satisfies their connections and contacts that get them appointed and will ensure they have access to top posts/appointments in the future.