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.
My, what a shocking development! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is good news (Score:4, Interesting)
It's good to hear this plan is dead. Kevin Martin backed this network so he'd look like a "family-values man" and score some points with cultural conservatives in North Carolina, where Martin has long been planning a bid for Congress.
This 25mhz of spectrum in the AWS3 band could go toward a lot of very cool services--LTE, for instance. Martin's plan--to earmark the 25mhz for 768kbps of censored wireless broadband that wouldn't even be widely deployed for a decade--is clearly not the smartest way to put these frequencies to use.
The FCC should do one of two things with this spectrum--a)auction it off with no strings attached and allow the winning firm to sell or rent the spectrum as if it were property, or b)set the band free as unlicensed flexible use spectrum subject only to basic EIRP and non-interference requirements and nothing more.
Filtered isn't Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a government mandated filter would set a dangerous precedent. Free is fine, but caveats aren't free. Or do they mean free as in repressed?
Re:The real fix for the filtering problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
Disagree strongly. Licensing means I have to ask permission to post my "Nudist Beach" website featuring naked people from age 1 to age 99, and the answer from politicians will be no; no; no.
Filtering is better because it still allows to publish my website, and if you don't want to see it, you can turn on the filter while not blocking my (or my users) free speech/expression.
Business as usual (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't read too much into this. The whole auction was set up to benefit ONE COMPANY.
The FCCs requirements for the use of the spectrum matched this company's business plan and nobody elses. So the cancellation of the auction isn't the bad thing you're making it out to be. It's a good thing, because all it would have done would have been to create another monopoly. Free web access? Nothing paid for with taxes is free. Get over it. I'd rather everyone pay for their own internet and keep my taxes low. I pay way too much as it is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895503515596485.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a matter of fact, I'm a doctor in Spain. And the system is just like what I've described in the GP.
Most of the population, as well as foreigners, use the system because it's "free for all". The word free means nothing when I come to think of the kind of insurance plans I could pay with the money they eat from my payroll each month.
It's true you won't be left for dead if you cannot pay, but for those that aren't in risk of death the waiting lists become longer and longer as everyone wants to enjoy his share of healthcare and the system collapses.
For many illnesses people cannot afford private practice (because it's scarce enough and has good paying customers) but cannot wait forever either. I see that drama every day. And what does the state do? Easy: throw it on our backs.
And to top it off, the now leftist government is pushing a really agressive agenda on euthanasia-no-questions-asked that most people fear will not be aimed at the wishes of the patients but the budget of the system. The draconian tobacco laws in Europe (I don't smoke, BTW) were put in place only to spare on social healthcare costs. Not to talk about countries like Cuba (been there, also) where every citizen can be a guinea pig.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you rather live to 120 as a plantation slave in the south, or 70 as a freeman in the north?
I'd choose the latter.
But first ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... lets define exactly what "Internet service" is. Most people seem to think its the capability to access remote services of your choosing at your convenience. It turns out that, absent some sort of 'Net neutrality' regulations (or even a definition), this is only a temporary condition, thanks to the benevolence of the monopoly telecoms. At any time, they reserve the right to filter or impose pricing structures so as to direct customers to their preferred partners.
I fear that the 'free service' will suffer from the same lack of understanding. Only PG content, services that have been blessed as 'approved' by the RIAA and MPAA and content deemed not to be politically incorrect will make it through the filters. The approval process to be placed on some white list (or get removed from a black list) will be every bit as onerous as having to pay kickbacks to be carried on the for-profit telecoms systems.
IMO, the Internet is a series of networks, routing nodes and name services needed to create connections between two points or broadcast packets from one to many. Anything more restrictive than this should not legally be advertised as 'Internet Service'.
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:2, Interesting)
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,
... Gamers and people would stream media would be paying to. And that's just residential customers. You are forgetting all the businesses who are not ISP but require broadband internet connection. Your commercial lines aren't always being run by Comcast or Timewarner or anything, but they certainly aren't going to use the free service and they also use the most bandwidth. So no, not everyone is going to hop onto the free network. I certainly would not use it, but I'm all for it for people who would be willing to use it.
Re:Its important to remember (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:1, Interesting)
TAX is not a 4 letter word despite propaganda to the contrary. Everyday you and the commerce you conduct benefits immensely from services paid for via tax revenue such as: clean and safe streets, primary education, courts of law, food inspection, knowledge that the house you bought is built to suitable standards and wont fall down or burn up, and if it does burn up a bunch of firemen will show up to try and save it.
People with an ideological negative opinion of taxes should move to a failed state (ie. no taxes) somewhere in Africa and fully experience their desired political climate.