Free internet service proposal from the FCC
 

The BIG BRO network - the era of privacy is officially over.

FCC proposes land of the free Wi-Fi | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

By CECILIA KANG, The Washington Post



WASHINGTON - The federal government wants to create super Wi-Fi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has rattled the $178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce lobbying effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea, analysts say. That has been countered by an equally intense campaign from Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all Wi-Fi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, especially the poor.

The airwaves that FCC officials want to hand over to the public would be much more powerful than existing Wi-Fi networks that have become common in households. They could penetrate thick concrete walls and travel over hills and around trees. If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and many rural areas.

The new Wi-Fi networks would also have much farther reach, allowing for a driverless car to communicate to another vehicle a mile away or a patient's heart monitor to connect to a hospital on the other side of town.

If approved by the FCC, the free networks would still take several years to set up. And, with no one actively managing them, connections could easily become jammed in major cities. But public Wi-Fi could allow many consumers to make free calls from their mobile phones via the Internet. The frugal-minded could even use the service in their homes, allowing them to cut off expensive Internet bills.

"For a casual user of the Web, perhaps this could replace carrier service," said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at the Medley Global Advisors research firm. "Because it is more plentiful and there is no price tag, it could have a real appeal to some people."

Designed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan would be a global first. When the U.S. government made a limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in innovation followed. Baby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphones were created. Millions of homes now run their own wireless networks, connecting tablets, game consoles, kitchen appliances and security systems to the Internet.

"Freeing up unlicensed spectrum is a vibrantly free-market approach that offers low barriers to entry to innovators developing the technologies of the future and benefits consumers," Genachowski said in an e-mailed statement.

Some companies and local cities are already moving in this direction. Google is providing free Wi-Fi to the public in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan and parts of Silicon Valley.

Cities support the idea because the networks would lower costs for schools and businesses or help vacationers easily find tourist spots. Consumer advocates note the benefits to the poor, who often cannot afford expensive cellphone and Internet bills.

The proposal would require local television stations and other broadcasters to sell a chunk of airwaves to the government that would be used for the public Wi-Fi networks. It is not clear whether these companies would be willing to do so.

The FCC's plan is part of a broader strategy to re-purpose entire swaths of the nation's airwaves to accomplish a number of goals, including bolstering cellular networks and creating a dedicated channel for emergency responders.

Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Genachowski for his idea of creating free Wi-Fi networks, noting that an auction of the airwaves would raise billions for the U.S. Treasury.

That sentiment echoes arguments made by companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Intel and Qualcomm, which wrote in a letter to FCC staff late last month that the government should focus its attention on selling the airwaves to businesses.

Some of these companies also cautioned that a free Wi-Fi service could interfere with existing cellular networks and television broadcasts.

Intel, whose chips are used in many of the devices that operate on cellular networks, fears that the new Wi-Fi service would crowd the airwaves. The company said it would rather the FCC use the airwaves from television stations to bolster high-speed cellular networks, known as 4G.

"We think that that spectrum would be most useful to the larger society and to broadband deployment if it were licensed," said Peter Pitsch, the executive director of communications for Intel. "As unlicensed, there would be a disincentive to invest in expensive networking equipment and provide users with optimal quality of service."

Cisco and other telecommunications equipment firms told the FCC that it needs to test the airwaves more for potential interference.

"Cisco strongly urges the commission to firmly retreat from the notion that it can predict, or should predict ... how the unlicensed guard bands might be used," the networking giant wrote.

The lobbying from the cellular industry motivated longtime rivals Google and Microsoft to join forces to support the FCC's proposal. Both companies would benefit from a boom in new devices that could access the free Wi-Fi networks.

These companies want corporations to multiply the number of computers, robots, devices and other machines that are able to connect to the Internet, analysts said. They want cars that drive themselves to have more robust Internet access.

More public Wi-Fi, they say, will spur the use of "millions of devices that will compose the coming Internet of things," the firms wrote in their comment to the FCC last week.

"What this does for the first time is bring the prospect of cheap broadband, but like any proposal it has to get through a political process first," said Harold Feld, a vice president at the public interest group Public Knowledge.

Let's be honest... if the Government is running this, it won't be "FREE" (like "free beer" free) for us, the taxpayers.

And willbe more expensive at the end.

How much have you paid for over-the-air TV or radio during your lifetime? Perhaps that's the analogy you should be applying here.

You "pay" for over the air TV by watching commercials.

Anything that is "Free" costs more in the long run.

No one is holding a gun to your head to watch commercials. Oh wait...

I don't have a hard position on this topic, but I can see what the FCC is proposing is to get internet to everyone in the US, and to let the innovators and job creators develop products and services that utilize this nationwide service. Actually, my earlier free TV/radio analogy was a bit off. It's more like President Eisenhower's interstate highway system. That ended up creating an explosion in growth of interstate commerce, travel, and businesses that capitalized on the new opportunities presented.

The Interstate highway system is directly spelled out in the Constitution. What is the justification for the government creating a free internet access?

So all the people with jobs to provide the service of internet to a house or business, and the individual purchases of routers and switches all have the government going into competition against them. Competing against free is difficult.

I remember when Wal Mart first got into the grocery business it terrified all the small grocery stores. Now Wal Mart controls the business. Having Wal Mart as your competition is tough free government service is impossible to compete against.

Of course in reality we all know the entire program will be run with the efficiency of the TSA and the Post Office. The free Wi-fi will be at dial up speed with frequent interruptions. The Department of Wi-Fi will be more expensive then the TSA & Post Office and less efficient.

It is a stupid idea. Right up there with free cell phones.

Really, then our gov't was violating the Constitution until the late 1950's.

Glen, you're using a bit of hyperbole here.

First, the main means of transportation a hundred years ago was by train. Then the US highway system and later the interstate highway system made the new technology (cars & trucks) the primary way to move around the country. Then there's the whole airline industry and FAA to add to the mix. What happened to the rail companies? Mergers, failures, reduction in areas served. Somehow the republic survived and although some businesses lost out, others sprung up and provided more and better capabilities than what the rail companies provided.

Walmart is a corporate (near-)monopoly. What the FCC is proposing is more like US/interstate highways competing with rail lines.

This service would likely be under the FCC, who reports to Congress, not a new department that reports to the White House.

The comparison to free cell phones is incorrect. Once again, it sounds to me like it's more like making (internet) highways available for use. Products that run on it will be produced and sold to the public. This will probably create a large number of private sector jobs and increase technical innovation.

Highways aren't free (think gas taxes), so I'm not going to imply this will be any "more" free. But, the idea is intriguing.

Further, Glen, TSA is a knee-jerk reaction to terrorists. The Post Office is in transition. In the past, it was an important part of our lives for communication and conducting business transactions. In the future, it will be extinct, replaced completely by electronic communications and commerce.

What the FCC is proposing would put thousands of telcom workers on the unemployment line, and bankrupt companies, would it not?

Is socializing a service like Internet not a step toward socialism overall?

Do the airwaves lead to socialism? Do the air routes lead to socialism? Does the highway system lead to socialism? Seriously, this is crazy talk.

As far as displacing workers and bankrupting companies, you would see a transition of businesses to do new things. What happened to rail companies and workers?

I guess I like to think of the future and not cling to the past so tightly. New opportunities await.

Sarcasm is supposed to be green. Military and Post roads are spelled out in the Constitution.

Is there a proposal to have free Air service or free train service?

Commercial air routes are governed by the federal government. They don't charge airlines to use the routes.

From the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Increasing opportunities and access to information/knowledge/communication/commerce for all Americans might fit in here.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Your assertion ties in here. My assertion is that the extent of the IHS goes way beyond this and has been a "job creator" for our country.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

You can use the general Welfare clause to mean anything. It was not intended as a means to provide free wifi anymore than the post office was supposed to provide free paper and ink in colonial times.

Dual use roads are fine.

As far as the skies being free. Nope. The FAA is paid for by the airlines and we pay it in the form of higher fares. Look up fuel taxes and ticket taxes. There was a bit of a row about 18 month ago when the tax expired and the airlines pocketed the taxes. It was re-instated a few days later with the 2011 fiscal cliff deal.

Free airwaves for TV / radio?

Why does the government own the radio spectrum?

Some became "publicly owned". All became taxpayer subsidized.

I call BS....

Show me a wireless technology that can travel over hills without towers or repeaters...

TANSAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

If the government is doing it for you, it is costing more in the long run. As one of my buddies and I were discussion recently, the least efficient, least effective companies we've dealt with in international construction have always been governments.

Why will this be any different?

Did they claim no towers/repeaters?

OK, I understand skepticism. But I see opportunity. IMO, this idea is like Eisenhower's highway system, all over again. It's one of the reasons I feel he was a very-good-to-great President. But, YMMV.

IF people raised cain about the low level electromagnetic radiation from the back scatter scanners at air ports, imagine the constant all your life bombardment from this product! I at least live in enough of a hole in the ground I don't really get cell service, TV, radio, etc.

First, internet access is a luxury item, you don't need it to exist, the gov' has no business involving themselves in it other than creating a single control point. Secondly does anyone know about the "Tragedy of the Commons?"

Depending on how you interpret it, it can have many meanings. But it means to me that minimizing common ownership is good. If an individual owns something, they will take care of it best. If there is joint ownership of something, everyone will try to maximize their use of the common asset. People are better stewards if they privately own something.

yet many of the 50's nut-con's wanted ike and earl [his supreme court head guy]

IMPEACHED

they were wrong then
just as they are wrong today

This. The money for the extensive infrastructure required will have to come from somewhere, i.e. taxes. It will be free only to those who do not pay taxes. At least I currently have a CHOICE as to whether or not I want to pay for internet, cell phone, etc. As a taxpayer, how is this a good idea?

And you have a choice of the level of service you wish. You want $10/mth, you get 500kb/sec. You want 50Mb/sec you pay $99/mth. Do you want it to come with online storage? Website? etc?

With the government, you get one choice.

Just like "Free" government schools. They are not free, and you get what they serve.

I get it that you guys want to put this into private hands. Private hands have given us the cellular and cable service models. Too limiting, IMO.

I get it that you want the ability to have more capability and would pay for it. At this stage, is that really something that outside the bounds of this proposal? IMO, this is at an embryonic stage right now.

I also get it that this proposal is visionary and potentially transformative. I look forward to the future, not the past. Look for the opportunities.

I would suspect so that we're not all bumping into each other on various frequencies.


This thread seems kinda PARFy though.


I guess I could be for something like this if we stop funding something else.

It's a very poorly thought out idea even in it's "embryonic' stage, but that's how the gov' does things isn't it? The massive infrastructure and maintenance costs, along with having to provide gov' tech support to everyone on the system is ridiculous.

Now add in that every scammer with a smart phone will be taking advantage of the system and it's a real mess. Is the gov' going to provide workstation antivirus software as well; training? It goes on and on down the rabbit hole.

Last I checked the interstate highway system couldn't scam you for your life savings. Bad idea by poorly informed people, as per usual.

Well, people used to try to sell the Brooklyn Bridge :D

try driving some stretches of I-95 with a large amount of cash
local cops make a habit of stealing cash by claiming the cash is ''drug money''
without any proof indeed you are expected to prove it is not ''drug money'' :rolleyes:

I honestly just don't see the opportunities. For a relatively paltry monthly fee nearly anyone in this country can have internet service. Why should taxpayers start providing it for "free"?

Paltry to you; not to the (literally) millions who don't have internet access because they simply can't afford it. There are people in our country who a deviance of $5 in their monthly expenses is too much for them to handle.

Personally, I don't see this as a bad idea--conceptually. If you look at the other developed economies around the globe, none of them pay as much for their internet/cell phones as we do. Our service providers know that we're willing to pay for this service, so they charge whatever they want; not what they need in order to make a bit of profit. If the government tosses a "free" option out there for people, I really don't see how it'll hurt the common citizen any.

True, but is it really a NEED? I don't see it as a need any more than a cell phone, cable TV, etc. NEED is food, water, shelter, etc. I'm jaded because I grew up in a household where my parents didn't have cable because they couldn't afford it, I don't think many really understand the concept of need vs want.

BTW, there are a number of places where free internet is available. Not only public and business locations with free wifi, but public libraries also offer free PCs and internet. I guess I just don't understand how I (taxpayer) am responsible for providing free wireless internet for those that can't currently afford it. Do we really need more people looking at online porn?:cool:

C'mon Matt it's the ultimate stimulus package.

Or is it package stimulator?