Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Communications Government The Internet Technology

US Considers Some Free Wireless Broadband Service 111

Posted by kdawson
from the get-what-you-don't-pay-for dept.
gollum123 writes "US regulators may dedicate spectrum to free wireless Internet service for some Americans to increase affordable broadband service nationwide, the Federal Communications Commission said on Tuesday. The FCC provided few details about how it would carry out such a plan and who would qualify, but will make a recommendation under the National Broadband Plan set for release next week. The agency will determine details later. One way of making broadband more affordable is to 'consider use of spectrum for a free or a very low-cost wireless broadband service,' the FCC said in a statement." Nobody has more than a couple of paragraphs on this story. None of the press coverage mentions the obvious likelihood that any such free network would be heavily filtered, censored, and monitored.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Considers Some Free Wireless Broadband Service

Comments Filter:
  • Re:This isn't new (Score:5, Informative)

    by mrsteveman1 (1010381) on Wednesday March 10 2010, @12:59AM (#31423160) Homepage

    Here is the company http://www.m2znetworks.com/ [m2znetworks.com]

    They originally wanted a 15 year exclusive spectrum license, and as you can see from their website, even now after their original plan was totally rejected, they're entirely committed to filtering things to make it "family friendly" if they get approval as a licensee.

  • The actual remarks [fcc.gov] by Commissioner Clyburn are a lot less technical than the SL summary implies. What she wants doesn't have so much to do with the physical deployment of broadband (the "last mile"), as it does with actually adopting the broadband that's available (what she called the last "half-mile".)

    Apparently, 93 million Americans don't use broadband, even though they could. Why? The Commish says its because 1) broadband costs too much, 2) non-users lack "digital literacy", and 3) non-users just don't see the benefit. Her proposed fixes have a lot more in common with the Peace Corps than with the White Spaces Coalition: provide free broadband to the poor, and form a National Digital Literacy Corps to deliver a National Digital Literacy Program while going home-to-home to help set up broadband. Her model is the recent national switch-over to digital TV, where hundreds of thousands of volunteers went around and hooked people's TVs up.

  • by TaggartAleslayer (840739) on Wednesday March 10 2010, @08:29AM (#31424866)

    You've never visited a rural area, have you? Draw a circle even 50 miles around a major population center and I guarantee there are pockets where people live and can't get broadband.

    Just because cities are covered, it doesn't mean everyone is. I do admit that it is becoming less of an issue even in small towns, but any time I go back to Willis Texas, I am reminded that "DSL doesn't cover it and the cable company won't go there". Once again, just because you look around and find it to be quite available, it doesn't mean everyone does. We're a really big country.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10 2010, @09:04AM (#31425012)

    When it comes to actual fund received from the government, the telecoms got squat.

    [citation needed]

    $182 million [tmcnet.com]
    The first broadband stimulus grants and loans – about $182 million worth – finally have been awarded

    There, 10 seconds on google.
    Your turn.

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!

Working...