Slashdot Log In
FCC Cancels Free Internet Vote
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:11 PM
from the pipe-dream-or-a-tube-dream? dept.
from the pipe-dream-or-a-tube-dream? dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Mobile: FCC Pitches Free, Bowdlerized Wireless Internet Access 298 comments
Aidtopia writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing auctioning off an unused part of the 25 MHz spectrum on the condition that the winner provide free wireless Internet access. The proposal sets coverage targets that ramp up to 95% of the population within 10 years. The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content." I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
[+]
News: Complaints Pour In After Digital TV Test 537 comments
djupedal writes "'Even if all goes smoothly, next February's digital television shift is likely to generate hundreds of thousands of complaints from television viewers around the country.
A major problem during a test run in Wilmington, N.C., was the inability of over-the-air viewers to receive new digital signals, according to figures collected after the test.'"
[+]
Content Filtering Pulled From Free Broadband Proposal 111 comments
huzur79 writes "Electronista is reporting that Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC, has dropped the content filtering provisions from the proposal for free wireless broadband service, according to an interview with Ars Technica. Previous drafts of the plan required protection methods to prevent users from accessing objectionable content, such as pornography. 'I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away,' Martin said.
The proposal has received criticism and opposition from a variety of groups including the Bush administration, wireless companies, and consumer interest organizations. T-Mobile has argued that communicating data on the allocated frequency bands will cause interference and quality degradation. Civil liberties groups argue that the FCC would overstep its authority and violate the Constitution."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Its important to remember (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Its important to remember (Score:5, Funny)
Except for his great aunt Mavis who I happen to know is in fact a platypus.
Parent
Re:Its important to remember (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
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.
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?
Parent
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Informative)
While I've read a number of your posts, and I think they're generally decent (even if I don't always agree) I must point something out with this one.
Compelling a provider to provide "free" service is a tax. Its just a well hidden one. Taxes on corporations annoy me for the same reason politicians love them. They can levy them without fear of backlash from their constituencies. Hell, they get to profit off them from political lobbies and the like. The constituencies still pay them. They just don't get up in arms when the tax is hidden behind the price tag of the stuff they buy.
Parent
Re:State monopoly. Good only at first. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Re: (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: (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
My, what a shocking development! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My, what a shocking development! (Score:5, Informative)
> Wasn't there a U.S. city that recently was sued by a telecom because they had the unmitigated gall to actually make plans to build their own fiber network for use by their residents, because that telecom didn't want to be bothered to build the infrastructure themselves?
There are many. Here's a few:
Utah's Utopia project vs. Qwest: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/99301 [dslreports.com] and http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/97502 [dslreports.com]
Utah's iProvo deployment (which is weird because a company, Broadweave, bought the entire muni deployment): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94208 [dslreports.com]
Powell, WY vs. Qwest and Bresnan Comm.: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94814 [dslreports.com]
Monticello, MN vs. TDS Telecom: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/98320 [dslreports.com]
Vermont vs. ...themselves: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94893 [dslreports.com]
There's also the fibre ownership ordeal in Ottawa, but that's a little different (no lawsuits): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/96618 [dslreports.com]
Parent
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.
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.
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.