backtop

Print 194 comment(s) - last by mherlund.. on Dec 15 at 2:17 PM
FCC's vision of free wireless Internet for everyone in jeopardy

Municipal Wi-Fi has not caught on in the U.S.; it was believed that this sort of wireless internet service could be used to provide connectivity to people in a city or portions of a city. Part of the issue surrounding municipal Wi-Fi and notable failures is that the signal had issues getting inside homes and businesses and speeds weren't fast enough for many users.

Despite the failure of many municipal Wi-Fi networks, the FCC has been considering a plan that would provide a nationwide wireless internet access system that would give access for free. The core of the plan revolves around auctioning a 25MHz slice of spectrum in the 2155MHz to 2180MHz band.

Part of the stipulation on the FCC auction of the bandwidth would be that the winner of the auction uses a portion of it to provide the free nationwide internet access. The goal is to provide internet access to Americans who either can’t afford broadband access or don’t want to pay for it.

Lawmakers, citizens, and wireless providers are coming down on both sides of the plan, but the Bush Administration has come out against the plan for free internet access. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin this week that expressed the Bush Administration's opposition to the FCCs plans for free Internet access.

The plan for auctioning the bandwidth and free access for Americans is set to be voted on as early as next week reports CNET News. The Wall Street Journal offered portions of the letter in a recent story: "The (Bush) administration believes that the (airwaves) should be auctioned without price or product mandate. The history of FCC spectrum auctions has shown that the potential for problems increases in instances where licensing is overly prescriptive or designed around unproven business models."

An FCC representative acknowledged that the FCC had received the letter and told The Wall Street Journal, "We agree that market forces should help drive competition, but we also believe that providing free basic broadband to consumers is a good thing."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I am conflicted...
By Motoman on 12/11/2008 1:32:05 PM , Rating: 5
...really, is broadband internet access such a necessity that our government should be paying for it for all citizens with taxpayer dollars? Hmmm...

Besides that, there is the issue of any "conditions" they'd hang on it...i.e. censorship. "we'll give you free internet access...so long as you only read/see things that we want you to read/see."

Yes, it's a long ways off from teh Great Firewall of China...but still. Censorship is censorship.




RE: I am conflicted...
By Quiescent on 12/11/2008 1:39:06 PM , Rating: 3
There are some jobs out there that do not allow for you to walk up to their place and apply. Some of these jobs are very tight security jobs too.

Another good reason to allow internet is because of the fact that there is plentiful information on the internet that can help people out.

Maps, information about an apartment before you go and get one and make a bad choice, restaurant menus and nutrition facts, reviews on consumer goods/electronics/etc before you make a bad choice and waste your money, whitepages and google to figure out who it is that keeps calling you from that phone number, a lot of things that even my step sister who lives by herself can't afford to see because she has a baby, and internet is not on her priority list as of now.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Quiescent on 12/11/2008 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you do not use the internet to it's full potential, doesn't mean that someone else will.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
Internet access is available for free in many places, most notably the local library. If your step sister wants to use the Internet, she can take her baby there and have at it. It's not my responsibility to provide her with her own personal access because she can't afford it. I didn't chose to have a child, and as a result I have more disposable income.

The problem with the "this person can't afford it so we have to provide it" logic, is that there's no logical end. Vehicles are nice to have, and for many people they're essential for employment. But does that mean it's the government's responsibility to provide one to every person? How about a computer? After all, what good is this free Internet access if you don't have a computer to access it? What about entertainment? The list goes on, and on, and on.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Mitch101 on 12/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: I am conflicted...
By dsx724 on 12/11/2008 4:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
While the logistics of free internet access are difficult to realize, the idea isn't bad unless it starts killing random bugs because of too much RF noise (but they'll adapt :) Its a matter of convenience rather than price. With public wireless internet, much of the overhead that goes into creating service providers are eliminated. You'll save paper bills, hardware, and laying redundant cables, etc. Once sewage was a luxury too, but even Rome realized that cities need it for society to move forward.

That is not to say it should be done now. We have too many problems with secure computing at the moment to engage in what I think is a waste of tax payer money. Just like the manned mission to the moon (unless u count inspiration as commodity). What I can tell you is that if government remain fixed on the services they provide, the country will die. Small government is not necessarily a virtue, less politics is.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 4:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I can tell you is that if government remain fixed on the services they provide, the country will die.
I partially agree with the sentiment, but I was arguing two things. First, free internet access is something the government already provides, albeit in a less convenient form. Second, every service provided by the government should be scrutinized, and the number of these services should be limited as much as possible.

quote:
Small government is not necessarily a virtue, less politics is.
I believe both are.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Quiescent on 12/11/2008 5:13:03 PM , Rating: 3
You assume that every person who can't afford internet works from 9-5. Most libraries even close very soon. And the bus route where I live closes at 6pm. (Now I'm including every person I can think of that might have a problem with that). If they own a car, they are liable to not go out, because they have a child to tend to, a dog to tend to, or are just wanting to get on the computer for a couple of minutes before they go to bed. If a person has enough money to own a computer, and usually it is a very old 1990s computer, then they would probably have a job in which they also pay taxes.

It's about time and money. And most people who are capable enough to own a shitty computer but not pay $30 extra a month for the lowest internet connection offered from an ISP (This is the price for the lowest connection offered from a cable company where I live) are more likely to be working long hours or have two jobs to just keep a roof over their head.

Think about it. Really think about it. A computer costs quite a bit. It might be hard to obtain a free computer unless you know somebody. And usually if you own a computer, you probably have a job.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 10:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Your assertion that I haven't thought about this issue, or that I'm just ignorant and that's why I don't agree with you is insulting.

Access to the Internet is not a right any more than access to a supply of Skittles is a right. Both are luxuries that varying amounts of people can afford. The government, in my opinion, should not be in the business of providing (or mandating) luxuries or conveniences for people.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ICE1966 on 12/12/2008 6:19:57 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, the government should not provide those luxuries.
you are right on the money.


RE: I am conflicted...
By mherlund on 12/15/2008 2:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
The internet is a luxury, plain and simple. Just like a telephone, should the government pay for everyone to have telephone service so people can get a call from potential employers? What about a cell phone, it is more convenient and you might not be home when someone calls. Water, electricity, these are more necessities than internet, but you don't see them free do you?

It is not the governments job to provide free internet, if they want to and have extra money for it then go ahead, but it is not a priority.


RE: I am conflicted...
By cogito on 12/11/2008 7:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Do you support government building of roads? That allows for the transfer of physical goods which has a lot of inherent value. The internet allows transfer of information which also has a lot of inherent value. If you do support public financing for roads, why would you support that and not public financing for internet from home?


RE: I am conflicted...
By Ringold on 12/11/2008 7:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
There's a valid argument that could say, with our economy being as advanced as it presently is, we could probably get away with privatizing (and heavily regulating) the interstate high way system completely. Many toll roads across the country have already been spun off by governments.

But going back 50 years, no roads, and no inter-city trade of any appreciable amount. However, no government internet, and.. well, what is internet penetration in the US market already? Between 80 and 90% of households? Toss out the large elderly segment of the population and I'd bet it's closer to 100%. That's a pretty stark difference compared to the provision of roads. No roads, no other options. No government internet, and everyone that wants it gets it anyway, because they've already got it.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ICE1966 on 12/12/2008 6:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
listen, roads and the public school sustem are needed. No matter how screwed up the public school system is. the internet is not something that is needed to educate our children, hell, our children were educated long before the internet. to compare those things is crazy, what an idiot.


RE: I am conflicted...
By KeypoX on 12/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By deadrats on 12/13/2008 6:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
for the love of God, "you" are not being made to pay for anything, nothing, the government IS NOT the one that will be providing the internet access, all the FCC is doing is auctioning off the rights to a portion of the spectrum and a small portion of that must be used to provide free internet by the auction winner.

that's it, it's not costing you, or anyone else, one red cent.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ccmfreak2 on 12/11/2008 4:37:52 PM , Rating: 4
These are legitimate needs for providing internet to the people, but do not provide legitimate reasons for free wi-fi to everyone. Libraries can easily fulfill these internet needs.

Other things can fulfill much of these needs two - such as a phone book given for free by the phone company. I'm not saying that finding reviews and nutrition facts are not good things to search for, but I don't see it as legitimate reasons to increase my taxes to pay for an unsecure wi-fi system for people who can pay for a lap-top but have trouble paying to feed their own children.

Plus (professional) businesses will never use it due to the fact that it is unsecure. Client information is too important to be exposed to to an unsecure network.

We provide internet access at most libraries across the country. For crying out loud, here in the heart of Eastern Kentucky, most libraries have internet access.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Quiescent on 12/11/2008 5:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Are we paying tax for this new DTV? or regular TV? I don't see a tax increase for this new DTV coming out... Hmm... Maybe I'm missing something here?


RE: I am conflicted...
By Quiescent on 12/11/2008 5:21:38 PM , Rating: 1
I might add that there wouldn't be enough terminals in a library because there is already plenty of people using them.

How about that?

I remember how that was in school in the library. I would take the extra mile to get my teacher to let me go early, get my lunch, snarf it down, and then go to the library, because there is about 200-300 computers in the library, and only like 300-500 people who want to use them during lunch time.


RE: I am conflicted...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/12/2008 12:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
If lunchtime is the high-traffic period, why not go a bit earlier or later?

More importantly, why should other people be forced to slave to pay for your inability to afford Internet access?


RE: I am conflicted...
By deadrats on 12/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 12:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I'm missing something here?


Yep, you are. The television stations themselves are paying for the frequencies they use to broadcast their signals, not tax dollars. This money of course comes from the lovely thing called advertising, you know... that new invention called a commercial.


RE: I am conflicted...
By KashGarinn on 12/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By tmouse on 12/12/2008 7:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
The bottom line is that without exception, in the US, cities that have tried this have had at best poor results. If we already had numerous cities with successful wifi systems working then maybe it would be worth it to unify things and get the federal government in the picture. Right now with the current state of the art it would be a colossal waste of money. Also keep in mind this will be a VERY censored net (that’s in the spec) it MUST be "friendly" for all ages, what constitutes friendly and how much censorship is needed is not well defined so add humongous legal costs to this picture. I quite frankly do not know how we ever got to where we are today the way people imply that internet access is the end all to civilization. It is convenient; but how did we ever get jobs or apartments or food/entertainment information before the net? The net has provided MORE information (much of which is questionable at best) but it has NOT reduced the information available from other sources one iota. Once a proven small scale model can be shown to work at the city level and be shown to scale to the state level then and only then should the federal government get involved. Anything else will be a free pass to waste and more than likely outright theft of taxpayers’ money.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 11:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite. There is a big difference between thinking yeah it might be nice to have public free internet and wanting to pay for it. The real thing is, we don't want everyone to be forced into paying for it whether they want it or not. Now if there was a voluntary progam asking people to contribute a little money to making something like this happen then it would be fine.


RE: I am conflicted...
By rcc on 12/12/2008 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your perspective is: you don't want to have free wireless internet FOR EVERYBODY because it would mean people who can't afford it would be getting something for free. This is the argument I hear from every single american who objects to this and any other program which helps everyone in the community, not just poor people.


Ok, here's your contrasting point. I'm an American, I mostly object to this. But, not because anyone would be getting it for free. Rather because someone else, including me, would have to pay for it. Do you understand the distinction?

As for the rest of your rant.... This is a proposed requirement levied on someone that wants something else, the use of the balance of the frequencies. They are going to do it as cheaply as possible, and probably somewhat more cheaply than possible.

The least expensive option on anything is quite often not the cheapest.


RE: I am conflicted...
By afkrotch on 12/12/2008 7:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a lot of things that even my step sister who lives by herself can't afford to see because she has a baby, and internet is not on her priority list as of now.


Neither would a computer or the power to have it run. So WTF is your point?


RE: I am conflicted...
By DASQ on 12/11/2008 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you weren't born early enough, but back in the day, all research and studying was done in a library. Finding the right books could sometimes be a challenge as you'd have to guess to the contents of the book based on the title, and then actually skim the book itself to find if it was really what you needed. If your branch didn't have a book, you'd have to go to another library, or wait for your library to bring it in for you.

Free basic internet is a very useful tool. Its a great tool for studying, is cheaper than renting porno's from that shifty corner store, and is entertainment in and of itself.


RE: I am conflicted...
By The0ne on 12/11/2008 2:28:21 PM , Rating: 3
A lot of kids and even young men and women (20-30) wouldn't know how to properly do research as it was done in the past. My nephews wouldn't know how, they've probably never stepped in a Library or know that the local community has a library. If you give them a computer but without internet and ask them to write a 10 page report on anything, chances are many of them won't have a single clue how to go about it. They would rather complain that they don't have the necessary "tools" to get the done done (excluding accuracy of internet info).

Internet is great but it's unbelievably fantastic how it can also create illiterate and unresourceful citizens.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 2:54:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
wouldn't know how to properly do research as it was done in the past.


“Research” isn’t done in the library. “Reading other people’s research” is done in the library.

But otherwise I agree. Most young people (and most old people) don’t have the facilities to appreciate proper research. The problem was present long beofore the internet.

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By deeznuts on 12/11/2008 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 4
Reading other people's research is research in and of itself.

Plus, you think the library only consists of books of someone else's research? Sounds like you haven't been out there in a while.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 3:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
I have a feeling you don't get what is meant by research. If I am in a lab and I split an atom for the first time and record what I find, that is research.

If I read about someone else doing that same thing, that is learning. Granted there is a fine line there and some might use it interchangeably, I believe that was his meaning behind his statement.


RE: I am conflicted...
By BladeVenom on 12/11/2008 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you're looking for new knowledge you're searching. If you looking for someone else's knowledge, you're re searching. ;)


RE: I am conflicted...
By Gzus666 on 12/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By VaultDweller on 12/11/2008 3:40:22 PM , Rating: 5
Research is indeed done in the library.

There is a distinction between primary and secondary research. The former is done in the field, lab, etc. The latter is done in the library, on the internet, etc.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: I am conflicted...
By VaultDweller on 12/11/2008 9:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you the best of luck in doing so without referring extensively to past research.


RE: I am conflicted...
By xmichaelx on 12/11/2008 4:48:57 PM , Rating: 5
As a librarian and researcher, I can assure you that, in addition to 'research', [good] libraries also generally have a massive collection of data.

This data can be used for research.

You seem to be confusing research with creating data -- the two are not necessarily the same.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/11/2008 5:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
As a librarian and researcher do you get to work with Bob Newhart and collect artifacts? :)

I remember in college (88-92 time) collecting research information for term papers. I would often collect that information during fall and spring breaks when I could drive around to 14 plus different libraries near my home town... Often the college library and local ones did not have the needed data to complete my projects. Even then I consider myself lucky because you could type what you were looking for into the computer and it give you a listing of articles, summaries, and which library had them in circulation (so not to have to special request them to be transferred into a local library). What a pain in the butt it was, but I learned the location of many libraries and the difference between a well funded one and a not so well funded one. I always spent more time researching my paper verse writing them...


RE: I am conflicted...
By hobbes7869 on 12/11/2008 6:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not where the research comes from, it is what research people chose to base their papers and analysis on. Things evolve, so it is not necessary to do research in a physical library. The real problem is that no one is teaching these kids how to distinguish what is a reputable source that provides information, and further no one teaches them how to read the research and then extract some further thought that is not presented in the research that is down. The do not know how to formulate their own original thought and then do research to back up their hypothesis, either via secondary research or through actual hypothesis testing. whether the research is presented on paper, or via photons emitted from a computer screen is irrelevant. It is the ability to distinguish factual research that has merit versus garbage


RE: I am conflicted...
By cogito on 12/11/2008 7:40:43 PM , Rating: 3
That is correct. Today's generation knows how to do research in a much more efficient fashion. As a result, information is spread much more easily and we have a much more knowledgeable and efficient society. In fact, I often am able to use the internet to find out if a book is worth checking out from a library, without going there myself.

I don't possibly understand how someone could rationally deride a more efficient system which really only improves the old.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Ringold on 12/11/2008 7:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't possibly understand how someone could rationally deride a more efficient system which really only improves the old.


I think you're whole post is wrong, because todays generation thinks this new, efficient, glorious method of research starts and stops at wikipedia. I also don't feel as though they have been given an education that leads them to think critically; they're too easily lead, by government school teachers, the media, government, wikipedia's opinion on matters, etc.


RE: I am conflicted...
By stilltrying on 12/11/2008 10:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Finally someone pointed it out " they're too easily lead, by government school teachers, the media, government, wikipedia's opinion on matters". Garbage in Garbage out. Sheeple is the common term and most the population is exactly that sheeple. Tell me what the history is and I will believe it from my nightly news or my school text book when the text books produce so much falsehoods and bias in them that it is unbelievable, but the sheeple dont want to wake up they want to be led. Who cares about critical thinking as long as I have my iphone. Oh well start the bashing.


RE: I am conflicted...
By cogito on 12/12/2008 9:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why you refer to "this" generation specifically. Of course a certain percentage of people end their research with wikipedia. However, 50 years ago, many students ended their research with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Other than anecdotal (non)evidence, do you have any reason to believe that the percentages of those using encyclopedias for research 50 years ago is any different from those today? I bet it's actually lower now, considering before the main storage of broad-based information was an encyclopedia, while today it's the internet.

As to your completely baseless implication that today's generation is more easily lead by the government etc. than previous generations...I wonder do you have any sort of study to back up this sentiment or is it just an idealization of the past?

The fact is, you can access the same information today as before, except now much faster and you needn't worry as much about where the information is located. Unless you can provide any real evidence that there is a higher percentage of "bad" researchers today than 50 years ago, I'll just have to conclude that you haven't thought through your points and instead just posted based on emotional rhetoric.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Ringold on 12/12/2008 1:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you can provide any real evidence that there is a higher percentage of "bad" researchers today than 50 years ago


I don't have comparative statistics on tap, no. I bet you don't either, though. At least no evidence that this has somehow made individuals better informed, well rounded free thinking individuals. I don't see how it could. It's not the information itself that leads to such an outcome. It's a frame of mind, a process, natural ability, system of values, etc.


RE: I am conflicted...
By imperator3733 on 12/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 2:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone has access to the internet in this country. It's just a matter of whether they chose to pay for it or not. And even if they don't, they can go to a library and use it.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Yawgm0th on 12/11/2008 2:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone has access to the internet in this country.

Very wrong.

Not everyone in this country even has access to a computer.

Many, maybe most rural areas do not have Internet access outside of dial-up. Although dial-up is technically still Internet access, its usefulness, even for web browsing, is suspect at best.

Those who do have access to broadband service might not be able to afford to pay for it. It's not a choice. That's not to say I advocate providing free goods or services to people just because they can't afford them.

Not everyone has access to a library.

I think you grossly overestimate many rural towns, which do make up a substantial portion of the population.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2008 2:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not everyone in this country even has access to a computer.


And who's fault is that ? And if they don't have a computer, why would they need Internet paid for by you and me ?

This is one of the few economic issues lately where Bush has been 100% dead on right. Just say NO to free nation wide federalized Internet !


RE: I am conflicted...
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 2:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
It isn't federalized cause they will have no hand in it and won't be paying for it. All that is happening is they are selling something with a stipulation that you must complete before owning said thing.

Which basically means whoever buys that spectrum will be your ISP, which means it is still privately held and controlled.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2008 2:47:20 PM , Rating: 1
You are a fool if you believe that. Or that it won't suck up government subsidies year after year.

Free nationwide wireless is NOT self sustaining and it never will be.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, it is a stipulation that to purchase the spectrum, you must accomplish what they set forth. Do you have any direct proof that what you say is true? Otherwise you are just making accusations based on nothing. The point is clearly that while making money off the rest of the spectrum, cause don't kid yourself, whoever purchases it will make money off it, you must provide internet access with some of the profit.


RE: I am conflicted...
By rationalemoticon on 12/11/2008 3:45:29 PM , Rating: 3
Do roads suck up government subsidies year after year? Should people be allowed to own highways and charge people to drive over their land?
Some of you must work for the big telcoms in the country - and I would like some disclosure if you do.
First of all, there is no reason that Comcast or Qwest or AT&T or ANY broadband provider should charge more for internet than I pay for heating or electricity. The internet tool has become no less a means of economic growth than roads and highways. In fact, in a world of services, it's hard to believe that it would be possible to go back to a world without.
Second of all, if we really want economic growth to come back, we need to reinvest in the technologies that will allow the American consumer to spend money on the open market. After all, as much money is made by the music industry off of downloads of albums from the internet as is made off of physical CD purchases, and all that has happened in ten years. Imagine what would happen in a world where everyone had the ability to buy online. How much money did Amazon make last year? Google?
How is investment in technological growth foolish, especially in a world where the good ol' USA is lagging behind most developed countries in the world for broadband availability for the masses?


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:56:13 PM , Rating: 1
There is nothing wrong with investment. But it should be the private sector making that investment.

And I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay as much for internet as electricity. I don't know about you, but a montly electric bill can range anywhere from $50-$150. I pay $40 for my internet. So unless you're proposing we go back to a "pay for the time you use" internet pricing model as in the early AOL days, that doesn't fly.

Besides, who are you to decide how much internet should cost? If companies want to charge $1,000 a month for it, they should have the right to. And do. The market will dictate then that they go out of business since no one would pay for it. Unless the government steps in as it has no legal grounds to do. A company offers a service. It should be able to charge whatever it wants for that service.

Should the government mandate that satellite radio lower its monthly fees because I think $15 a month is too much to pay for satellite radio? No. I simply vote with my wallet and not get it.

Christ you socialists are scary.

And the government pays for roads because the constitution DOES require that they provide a postal service. Roads are required for that postal service. And people need roads far more than they need the internet. I know people who choose not to pay for the internet at home.


RE: I am conflicted...
By rationalemoticon on 12/11/2008 4:39:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Christ you socialists are scary.
And the government pays for roads because the constitution DOES require that they provide a postal service. Roads are required for that postal service. And people need roads far more than they need the internet. I know people who choose not to pay for the internet at home.


Suddenly, everyone who thinks that their tax dollars should do something more useful is a socialist. It's just like we stepped back in time to the era of Commie hunting McCarthyism.

The Constitution as you pointed out was written before the time of the internet. If the internet had been around at the time, you could bet that all those profiteering founding fathers would have loved to have provided that as a service also (unless one of them had a major stake in a broadband communications company.)

As to satellite radio, no I don't think that you should force them to charge a certain amount, but you shouldn't allow the only satellite radio stations in existence to merge into a super-monopoly either. Price-fixing in any industry is against anti-trust laws and if you are the only guy selling a product... well you get the idea.

If we aren't going to stop monopolization, then we should at least make sure that the proprietor of the monopoly has representatives of the people keeping them in check.


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 4:46:24 PM , Rating: 1
Why would the founding fathers, if they were as "profiteering" as you say, want to provide free internet when they could charge for it you moron.

And where do you see price fixing? Furthermore, your representatives of the people are the same f*cking people who mandated monopolies in an area for phone and cable service.

As far as satellite radio, they were allowed to merge because there wasn't a big enough market to sustain two companies.


RE: I am conflicted...
By rationalemoticon on 12/11/2008 5:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, maybe I should write in smaller words, so that you can understand.
By profiteering, I meant that they didn't want to pay their tariffs to ship their goods to another country. They didn't want to pay their taxes to the government that gave them permission to live on it's land. They they were all about free... who do you think allowed them to communicate between say England and Vermont? At the time there was only one internet and it was called postage.

By price-fixing I mean that if a monopoly sets the price for the thing that it outright controls, that is price fixing. AND p.s. classical land line phone service is regulated - cable is not.

If satellite radio didn't have a market to support two companies, they should have been allowed to fail.

I think that we are adults - no need for profanity. But maybe "we" are not. In which case, your vulgarity invalidates your point and maybe you should spend more time educating yourself and less time spewing.


RE: I am conflicted...
By stilltrying on 12/11/2008 10:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am amazed at how socialized, communized, basically collectivists people really are and yet they love america and claim to be free yet on the other side of their face they want free (not free taxed services). Read the ten planks of the communist manifesto - a heavy and graduated income tax (lets throw internet tax on there too). A planned centralized economy (federal reserve). Wake up get educated and make up your mind are you a collectivist or an individualist. ITS ABOUT FREEDOM. Founding fathers, huh, what have you read from the founding fathers. The CONSTITUTION is not a living document it is set in stone only todays neocons and neolibs are doing end arounds the constitution anyway they no how because they know the founding fathers wrote it for individual frededom, to hold tyrrants at bay so they call it a living document. Its not perfect but it is very good when left intact.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 4:02:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do roads suck up government subsidies year after year? Should people be allowed to own highways and charge people to drive over their land?


Well, in some areas of the union, private companies have bought the rights to roadways from the government and have the rights to collect toll fees from the drivers.

quote:
First of all, there is no reason that Comcast or Qwest or AT&T or ANY broadband provider should charge more for internet than I pay for heating or electricity.


Boo F’n Hoo. If you aren’t happy with the cost of your internet, don’t pay it. I doubt you will die of exposure from losing fast access to online porn.

quote:
How is investment in technological growth foolish, especially in a world where the good ol' USA is lagging behind most developed countries in the world for broadband availability for the masses?


How does government mandated services that do not offer a means of profitability equate to “investment in technological growth?”

As for the state of the union. Well, if you like the broadband access that South Korea has, go right ahead and move there. I’ve been there. On the whole, I like it here a lot more.

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By rationalemoticon on 12/11/2008 4:52:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As for the state of the union. Well, if you like the broadband access that South Korea has, go right ahead and move there. I’ve been there. On the whole, I like it here a lot more.


Who are you Sean Hannity? Any time someone has an idea for change, to make things better for everyone in the country they are told that if they don't like it, they can leave. What a bunch of crap.

I don't know about you people, but I make my living off of the internet, and as far as I am concerned, expensive internet is just a corporate tax on my livelihood. In my state, there are only two broadband providers, one is cable and the other is DSL. That to me doesn't sound like it is good for a "free market economy."


RE: I am conflicted...
By Ringold on 12/11/2008 7:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any time someone has an idea for change, to make things better for everyone in the country they are told that if they don't like it, they can leave. What a bunch of crap.


I don't usually take that tact myself, though pointing to other countries and the results of their policies is valid. At any rate, there are many socialists out there who clearly think the Constitution and the principles behind it are trash. I for one would appreciate if the left wing would be honest and propose a new constitution or a massive amendment (or set of amendments), so we can have a state by state referendum by the people on if we want to cling to the principles upon which we were founded -- or go down a new, less classically liberal and more modern liberal path. They don't have that kind of honor, though, so it'll never happen. Easier to slowly, bit by bit, pursue their neo-Marxist agenda. Issue by issue. Vote by vote.

As for your lack of providers, there are other solutions to that. We don't have to go straight to free federal internet!


RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 1:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know about you people, but I make my living off of the internet, and as far as I am concerned, expensive internet is just a corporate tax on my livelihood.


So if I said I have to use my car a lot in my line of work...that's different how? Ok, I have more choices...I can get a cheaper car. But what if I get the cheapest car with the best gas milage in the world, and gas prices go up a lot? There are TONS of gas stations but wait...they all have roughly the same price. I guess when gas prices are high, the government should pay for my gas.

Bottom line is everyone and every business has different needs for making a living in their prospective fields. You are no more entitled to cheap internet than a trucker is to cheap gas, tires, and equipment maintenence.

People complain all the time about internet prices, yet they pay them. Supply and demand. It's worth what people are willing to pay, not what they want to pay.


RE: I am conflicted...
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 4:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, there is no reason that Comcast or Qwest or AT&T or ANY broadband provider should charge more for internet than I pay for heating or electricity.


I wish I paid as little for electricity and heating as I pay for internet.


RE: I am conflicted...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/12/2008 12:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"there is no reason that Comcast or Qwest or AT&T or ANY broadband provider should charge more for internet than I pay for heating or electricity. The internet tool has become no less a means of economic growth than roads and highways"
Whoa, whoa. You seem to be saying the price of goods and services should be based on how much you need them, rather than how much they actually cost to provide. Can you honestly not see the problems with such a rationale?


RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 1:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
Of course not. All businesses should run at a loss for the "betterment of mankind". Corporations are all evil money grubbing empires! Internet should be cheap or free, pharmaceutical companies should do research and provide medicine for nothing, and everything we want should be considered a "right".

Granted, if all that became true the economy would tank, our standard of living would decline drastically, most companies would go out of business, the goverment's income via taxes would dissapear, and all the socialistic programs would fall apart from lack of funds anyway. But hey, wouldn't all those people that think they are entitled to things they can't afford be better off?


RE: I am conflicted...
By straycat74 on 12/12/2008 9:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
"Capitalism is the unequal sharing of happiness. Socialism is the equal sharing of misery" ----- Winston Churchill


RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 1:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
After all, as much money is made by the music industry off of downloads of albums from the internet as is made off of physical CD purchases, and all that has happened in ten years. Imagine what would happen in a world where everyone had the ability to buy online. How much money did Amazon make last year? Google?


So do you think that the Internet just made the extra money appear magically? Money paid to Amazon for the most part is also money taken away from elsewhere. I could either go buy a TV from a store, or I could order one online from Amazon. The net difference to the economy is nothing. It's just a redistribution of income from a brick and mortar store to an online store, thus not effecting economic growth at all.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 1:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The internet tool has become no less a means of economic growth than roads and highways.


Without the Internet, commerce can be done in stores, over the phone, or through mail order. The Internet might be more convenient, but it's not necessary. Without roads however, commerce would come to a standstill. Goods have to be transported, people need to get to work, and so on. There is a big difference between a convenience and a necessity.

Also, the US isn't really "lagging behind" others for broadband. Sure some have it better, but most of those that do are geographically small and have fairly dense populations. The US is big and spread out, which makes infrastucture immensely more expensive to implement and maintain. My friends in the UK and Australia for example are jealous of my connection speeds and prices.

Read my other post as well. Online sales do not necessarily equal economic growth. For the most part a sale made online is a sale lost to a local store. Net effect on economy is nil.


RE: I am conflicted...
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 2:47:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Not everyone in this country even has access to a computer.


If someone does not have access to a computer, why the hell should we be paying to give them a wireless internet signal that they cannot access. Broadband internet is available pretty much everywhere in the country (places that are too rural to have cable or dsl can still have a dish).

If there are some small towns that can't even afford a library and would like a small internet cafe, that might be worth considering, but strictly on a case by case basis (and even that could be arranged through satellite). But in a country where the extremely vast majority of the people who want broadband access have access, re-blanketing the entire nation with wireless broadband would be a ridiculous waste of money.

There's a lazy and downright destructive trend in this country. Far too many people have a bad habit of waking up each day and asking themselves "what can I squeeze out of my government today?"


RE: I am conflicted...
By croc on 12/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am conflicted...
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 4:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I think both are huge problems... (off topic) I think CEO's should be limited to making no more than (something like) 10x or 20x more than the lowest-paid full-time employee in the company. I'm pretty sure they have something like that in Japan

But the topic of your "fix" doesn't really have anything to do with this article.


RE: I am conflicted...
By clovell on 12/11/2008 4:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you want to control the salaries of executives in public companies, you should buy a stock and vote, rather than expecting the government to start messing with other people's compensation.


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 4:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
CEOs should be able to make however much the companies board of directors are stupid enough to offer to pay them.

And there are FAR more people thinking they are entitled to certain things than there are CEOs making large salaries and "screwing their customers". A CEO making a lot of money doesn't affect me. Nor does them "screwing over their customers" unless I am a customer. And in the end, I have a choice whether to be a companies customer.

I do not have a choice however whether or not to pay my taxes which then get spent on entitlement programs for the aforementioned people.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Valdora on 12/11/2008 4:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Have you read-up on how the technology works? How it creates mesh networks using consumer devices?

Do you know this will help educators in every class room? How about how it will help emergency response teams and military in times of national disaster?

Can you think far enough ahead to see that this will connect consumers to retailers from anywhere anytime from many different types of devices? Do you know how many ways this could help our economy flourish?

Before you start spouting out uneducated nonsense I suggest you read up on the technology and see how it could actually help this country.


RE: I am conflicted...
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 4:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm aware of how the technology works, and I agree that it could be very useful. But, if the technology will inevitably be so incredibly valuable, surely there are at least several communications companies interested in setting up a national free network already... oh, there aren't any?

Though I must admit, I do love the idea of a world where students are able to easily waste class time on the internet and people are able to easily go shopping while doing things like driving.

What person that cannot afford internet will be injecting money into the economy once they have free internet?


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If the potential for so much profit is there by providing free internet, then a company will establish it on its own. Not through a government mandate.


RE: I am conflicted...
By phazers on 12/11/2008 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
Doesn't Netzero or somebody offer free dialup Internet (ad supported)? Anyway, I fail to see how Jed Clampett is gonna make use of the Internet, unless he wants a new moonshine recipe...


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:00:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Many, maybe most rural areas do not have Internet access outside of dial-up.


On that federally provided free to all phone system?

Come on. Internet access is less important than basic phone access and that was never made available to all for free by the government.

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually in many states, part of your phone bill is to pay for phone access for those who don't pay for their phone.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Fully aware of it. But subsidized handouts to the poor are not the same thing as federally mandated free phones for everyone.

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
True. But I fail to see the difference when both involve essentially taking money from one person and giving it to another.

We're not disagreeing here. Just differing on the method that the poor are given the free benefit while the rest of us have to pay for it.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you can’t see a difference between skimming money from the haves to help out the have-nots in a system that otherwise allows for a healthy industry that employees many, many people (you’ve seen the crowds of workers behind the “can you hear me now” guy in the commercials) and a system that looks to completely usurp the current ISPs business models by federally mandating free internet for all, I don’t know how to go about explaining the difference.

Why not just federally mandate that all car companies offer Bluetooth connections to sync with phones instead of having people hold their phone up to their ear instead of letting the car companies charge a premium for it? Why not mandate built in GPS to get the suction cup models off the windshield and take that source of profit away from them too?

Heck, mandate icemakers in the doors of all refrigerators, I don’t like paying extra for that feature. Mandate that remote controls have backlighting so I can operate it without turning the lights on, I had to pay extra for a universal remote that has that.

…and you over there, Bic, I’m tired of loosing the caps to your pens, your going to be getting a mandate to only offer pens with the click-out-click-in feature from here on out…

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I see your point. I'm just saying it isn't right either for a business to be forced to include a surcharge for its customers to pay (as they don't just put the charge on their to give people free phone service out of the goodness of their hearts) so that others who aren't paying customers get the same service for free.

If what the FCC want goes through, this could very well happen here. Whoever ends up buying the spectrum, and thus agreeing to the pre-condition, might have to charge paying customers, for whatever it is making money off of, a fee on top of their bill in order to pay for the free wireless internet they have to provide.


RE: I am conflicted...
By blaster5k on 12/11/2008 3:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Part of what comes with living in a rural area is less access to services. For those there who don't like that, they should consider moving to a more populated area. We can't realistically expect to service people who live in the middle of nowhere nearly as well as those in more urban areas.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, no. In this era it is more important that everyone be treated equally when looking at completely isolated topics. Not looking pragmatically at the overall picture…

It doesn’t matter that you had the benefit of buying 2 acres of land for $15,000. You should get all the same amenities as people that have to live shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors in congested urban areas.

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully people realize he's being sarcastic.


RE: I am conflicted...
By HrilL on 12/11/2008 2:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
How would they be paying with our tax dollars? Do you people not read? The terms of the auction would force which ever company that wins to build out and offer free service. It doesn't say anywhere that who ever wins gets tax money to build out and offer the free service.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 2:56:54 PM , Rating: 4
And you expect a company to buy rights to provide a service for which they will receive zero dollars from their "customers"? Whether or not the company can use the rest of the spectrum for something profitable, I can guarantee you that at some point in the future they will be demanding government subsidies to provide a service that the government has mandated, yet is not profitable or sustainable.


RE: I am conflicted...
By CSMR on 12/11/2008 3:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
The two situtations are equivalent.
If the government didn't put in the stipulation but paid the company to do it (with "tax dollars") the expected auction price would rise by that amount.


RE: I am conflicted...
By can on 12/11/2008 2:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion...yes. The computer + internet is the phone of the 21st century, it has become a necessary tool in doing many things, banking, research, directions, maintaining dialoges with people.

It is not necessary in the same way food shelter and clothing are, but in the context of modern society, yes it is a necessity. Do without a phone for a while, and see the kinds of things you need to do to work around that. While it is possible to do so, it is an arduous and excruciating process for many things.

Computers haven't wholly taken over the role yet, but I do not think it is very far off. It offers too much functionality for people to do without, and the internet is a fundamental part of that. Many sites take forever to load, and will often fail to do so with dial up. Making the functionality limited.

To do without would be like playing a game with a handicap, when you were no better at said game than your opponents...you're doing yourself a great disservice by not having a computer and broadband available.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Replace the word “necessity” with “more convenient” and you will be spot on.

Sorry, but the internet was not a “necessity” when I was a boy, it wasn’t a “necessity” when it came into limited use during college and its not a “necessity” now.

Stop being so lazy and you will start seeing you have a lot of options.

-Suntan


RE: I am conflicted...
By Targon on 12/11/2008 4:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
The issue isn't if it is a necessity NOW, but how long will it be before it becomes one? Look at trying to make a reservation for almost anything. You can make one for free online, or you can walk up to a counter and pay an extra fee to cover the costs of the person you deal with at the counter.

How do you feel when you need to send mail through the postal service to stay in touch with someone without a computer? Now, compare e-mail via dial-up to slow broadband, and then to fast broadband. As the speed of communications increases, the world opens up. Due to the lack of a high speed Internet connection in very rural areas, people from small towns will fall further behind.


RE: I am conflicted...
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The issue isn't if it is a necessity NOW, but how long will it be before it becomes one?
Food is a necessity. Shelter is a necessity. Telephones, Internet, television, vehicles, books, candy, flowers, etc, etc, etc are not necessities.


RE: I am conflicted...
By tmouse on 12/12/2008 7:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
I may have missed something but does it state anywhere that the wireless access must be high speed broadband? I believe it just has to be wireless, available for free and age friendly. It could be butt slow with spotty availability at any given time. I may be wrong on this but does anyone have minimum spec requirements for the system, are there any?


RE: I am conflicted...
By can on 12/12/2008 4:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that society evolves right? Would you suggest people do without light bulbs? Internal combustion engines (or even more advanced ones?) Stop being so lazy and extract your own oil from vegetables for your home lighting, sheesh! And walk for god's sakes, or at worst get a horse!

You don't see society evolving for the sake of the use of horses and subsequently the automobile? The quality of life made available by the light bulb? Quality of life so profound, people in America cannot truly conceive of doing without. It's a ludicrous proposition to ask people to do without those things at this point...Or do you think those things are luxuries? You're sense of a necessity is one bestowed upon elementary school students, not one that is conceived in the context of the modern world. Think about it...They have changed the way the world functions, to be without a modern functional version is just foolish...

Try Driving around in a Model A ford and see how far up any given hill you get...They are no longer practical. Realize it.

Communication is a key to the way things work both now and in the future. The varieties of communication made available by the computer and broadband/the internet dwarf older methods to the point of obsolescence, things have changed...


RE: I am conflicted...
By Kenenniah on 12/12/2008 6:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're sense of a necessity is one bestowed upon elementary school students, not one that is conceived in the context of the modern world.


No, our definition of necessity comes from this modern invention called a dictionary. If the answer to the question "Is it possible to live and get by without xxxxx?" is yes, then xxxxx is not a necessity. It might be essential for a more convenient modern lifestyle, but not for life itself.

Which is more essential for modern life, Internet or electricity? Is electricity free? Are your light bulbs free?


RE: I am conflicted...
By gstrickler on 12/11/2008 3:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
is broadband internet access such a necessity that our government should be paying for it for all citizens with taxpayer dollars?

We already are paying for it, sort of. Ever notice the "Universal Service Fund" charge on your phone bill? That money is used to subsidize the cost of phone service for rural areas AND it's also used to subsidize internet access to rural schools. Part of the subsidy is used to bring higher speed digital lines to rural switching stations, which can be used to provide DSL or similar internet access to communities where it would otherwise be cost prohibitive.

So, while we may not be paying for "free" internet access, we are already subsidizing the cost of internet access for a sizable number of people.

While I love having free wireless internet access when I'm not at home, I don't think it's something the taxpayers should be supplying.


RE: I am conflicted...
By Targon on 12/11/2008 4:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
When the telephone was new, the government paid to make sure everyone had access to the service, so the same applies here. Communication is a very important thing, and everyone should have access to a high speed connection, no matter if they live in a large city, or a small town with 15 people in it. Of course, those living in an area with a higher population density should have access to better services, but that is another issue.


RE: I am conflicted...
By joeld on 12/12/2008 8:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the government is not footing the bill, it would be the responsibility of whatever company wins the auction for the slice of spectrum.


RE: I am conflicted...
By 1337cookie on 12/12/2008 9:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
"...the winner of the auction uses a portion of it to provide the free nationwide internet access."

Taxpayer dollars?


RE: I am conflicted...
By deadrats on 12/13/2008 6:10:12 PM , Rating: 1
[quote]...really, is broadband internet access such a necessity that our government should be paying for it for all citizens with taxpayer dollars? Hmmm...[/quote]

reread the article and then reread the details of the plan: the government is not paying for anything, the FCC is auctioning of a portion of the spectrum (25 mhz worth) to any private entity that desires it, as a stipulation of acquiring the rights to that portion the private entity has to agree to provide free internet access to everyone.

furthermore, the infrastructure already exists to allow everyone to connect via a sort of national WiFi, there are no additional costs that need to be incurred and it's not even the entire portion that must be free, they can offer a very basic low-end broadband connection for free (using the same system that internet enabled phones use) and they would be allowed to market a higher tier product (faster speeds) for those that desire it.

the censorship issue does give me pause, but so long as there are no restrictions on the free access, i see no problems whatsoever.

as far as the bush administrations objections, who really gives a flying fuck, they'll be gone in a month and done fucking this country over.


I agree
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 1
Internet is not a right. It is a luxury. I will be pissed if I have to start paying for everyone's internet access too. I think the government's c*ck is quite far enough inside the middle classes @$$ for one year.




RE: I agree
By bribud on 12/11/2008 1:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking of starting my own country... *sigh*


RE: I agree
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 1:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
I see Texas becoming its own country again. Move there. I know I want to move back.


RE: I agree
By Yossarian22 on 12/13/2008 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I agree
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Internet is not a right. It is a luxury.


The sense of entitlement in this country is becoming such that the distinction is blurring.


RE: I agree
By RamarC on 12/11/2008 2:05:16 PM , Rating: 3
can you read? free internet access would be at no charge to the user or the government.
quote:
Part of the stipulation on the FCC auction of the bandwidth would be that the winner of the auction uses a portion of it to provide the free nationwide internet access. The goal is to provide internet access to Americans who either can’t afford broadband access or don’t want to pay for it.

you won't be paying for anyone's access and no c*ck would be up your (cl)ass!


RE: I agree
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
Do you honestly think whatever company provided this wouldn't get subsidies from the government? Otherwise what business is going to be willing to lose money on free internet for consumers? Ad revenue isn't going to pay for a nationwide free wireless internet system. The equipment to set up that kind of system costs BILLIONS. What company is going to spend those billions (of their own money at least) for something it can't charge for?


RE: I agree
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2008 2:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
^^ Win


RE: I agree
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
*takes a bow*

Common sense always wins. Unless the government or lawyers get involved anyway.


RE: I agree
By RamarC on 12/11/2008 3:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
wow, you're dense. did you ever think that the free access might require a device that has to be purchased? broadcast TV is FREE but you have to PAY for the TV to view it.

read the original proposal from 2006 and stop relying on your limited IMAGINATION for facts.


RE: I agree
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 4:14:00 PM , Rating: 3
And apparently you're too dense to realize that anyone who can't afford the internet probably isn't going to be able to afford buying something in order utilize a free wifi system.


RE: I agree
By RamarC on 12/11/2008 5:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
using your logic, i guess it's stupid to advertise to poor folks since they can't afford TVs or radios either.

and get your facts straight. the free spectrum 2.1ghz isn't wi-fi nor wi-max and devices for it don't exist yet.

and rather than just whining about how anything that's free is coming out of your pocket, why don't you buy a gun, move to montana, and join a freedom fighting group.


RE: I agree
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 5:10:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
using your logic, i guess it's stupid to advertise to poor folks since they can't afford TVs or radios either.
Yes, it is. Advertising to anyone who can't afford your product is foolish.


RE: I agree
By Chocobollz on 12/14/2008 12:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Then I guess you're not an advertiser. A man who cannot afford something now doesn't mean that he/she cannot afford it forever. You might not afford to buy a car when you're at age 10 but you may afford to buy it now so it doesn't matter if he/she couldn't afford to buy it now because everyone have a potential. Advertiser always try to promote their products to as many peoples as they can because of that potential.

????


RE: I agree
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 9:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Own a gun.

And as ebakke said, spending tons of money to advertise to a group that can't afford your product is retarded. About the only ads you see aimed at the poor are car sales saying your credit doesn't matter (but it does) and minimum coverage car insurance.


RE: I agree
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 5:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Must we resort to personal attacks on one another? It just makes you look petty. Argue with facts. State your opinions, and values. But leave the name calling in your head.


RE: I agree
By Torched on 12/11/2008 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention all the people that use the service will become dependant on the service. Once the provider goes belly up from the poor business model there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth by the dependant masses.

Then the defaulting company would be next in line for a bailout. "our clients rely on us for reliable internet access. We cannot fail as a company or else millions will be without internet service"

Its all within the governments power by then to justify buying the company and subsidize the entire project. Step by step socialism.

quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.


RE: I agree
By croc on 12/11/2008 5:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Google might... Notice that 'free' is one thing, 'ad free' is quite another. You have such a limited mind.


RE: I agree
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 6:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have such a limited mind.
Wow! What a statement. I'm really hoping that English is your second language, and something got lost in that translation. Otherwise that insult is totally uncalled for.


Am I wrong?
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 1:40:42 PM , Rating: 3
The title of the article is a little misleading.

To me it sounds like there is no opposition to free internet access, only opposition to the buisness model where it is forced to be free.

Internet forced to be free would surely have major reprecussions in all related industries that charge a price for internet to have a profitable company.

If a company can give free access and profit off of it (ads or other sources of income) I am all for it. Internet forced to be free is not good for business.




RE: Am I wrong?
By Quiescent on 12/11/2008 1:42:03 PM , Rating: 1
So we should just scrap regular TV (DTV)?


RE: Am I wrong?
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 1:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what you mean.

If you are comparing TV to "forced" free internet they are not the same. Free TV makes huge profit for networks in the form of ad revenue. Forced free internet is a service provided at a loss, probably supported by tax dollars.

If you are asking about the free bandwidth that will be availabe, it should be used however the winning bidder wants it to be used. (whether the FCC/govnmt should make money off of bandwidth regulation is another argument)


RE: Am I wrong?
By HrilL on 12/11/2008 2:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
There is no reason at all that tax money would need to be spent. Nothing about this has to do with spending money. The terms of the bid simply force which ever company that wins to pay for and build out a free nationwide network. That company will be forced to pay for it. Not us the tax payer. And forcing an ad at the top of everyone's browser that is on the free network is completely doable and most likely profitable. Netzero did this back in the day and they made money at it.


RE: Am I wrong?
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 2:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
I am glad you cleared that up because I wasn't sure how the program would be funded.

All the same, it should not be forced to be available free (or any price).

Business for current ISPs will go down (probably a lot) if this is implemented. They will be forced to compete with free. Not easy to do.

If ad supported internet is profitable, then companies can decide to make money that way. Artificially creating this segment of the market would be bad for the whole market.


RE: Am I wrong?
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 2:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
First, they are not forcing it, it is merely a stipulation in purchasing the spectrum. If they do not want to meet the stipulation, they don't have to buy that spectrum, simple as that. They will be making money off the spectrum clearly, otherwise why would they buy it?

Second, their business will not go down, as most likely these will be slow internet connections compared to what is available now. This just means they will have to put their prices more reasonable, or actually expand their infrastructure properly and have their speed match their price. Also means caps might go away, which would be fantastic.


RE: Am I wrong?
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
If it is a legal "stipulation," it is being forced on the purchaser.

The purchaser cannot decide to keep the spectrum rights but go without the free internet if they find it undesirable, now or in the future.

Forced.


RE: Am I wrong?
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 2:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Then don't buy it? If I tell you to buy my banana you must do a jig every hour, am I forcing you to do a jig? No, I am requiring you to do something to get what I have, which is perfectly legit.

Don't like it, don't buy it, that is still the free market motto.


RE: Am I wrong?
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 3:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't like it, don't buy it, that is still the free market motto.


I agree.

I never thought I would say this in my entire life but,

To get the banana I am forced to do a jig, am I not? That is the price for the banana.


RE: Am I wrong?
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 3:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but you could purchase the banana from somewhere else, or if we want to keep up the fun of this metaphor, you could use the banana that is already free for others to use (there are many other spectrum they can use as it is, so it is hardly a monopolized type good). Basically to get MY banana, you would have to buy mine, but there are others to be had.

Also, I have to say I love having you say the whole banana jig thing, it makes me laugh.


RE: Am I wrong?
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 3:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
There are not many other free spectra. This band happens to be unused/unliscensed so far.

There is this spectrum or nothing.

Therefore no other way to get a banana but by performing a humiliating jig.


RE: Am I wrong?
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 3:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well there is still plenty of free radio space to do most things, so unless they are doing something fancy new with it, I doubt they couldn't just do it with the existing frequencies. They lived without this band for what, 60+ years? I don't think it was that important. It all pretty much falls back on buy it or pass.


RE: Am I wrong?
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 4:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right, but you could purchase the banana from somewhere else
But I can't buy this 25Mhz spectrum anywhere else. There is only one 2155MHz to 2180MHz band. It's not like bananas, where I can wait a year for the FCC to grow another one. Here the FCC is the only seller, and there's only one product. They have a complete monopoly, and thus are able to demand whatever they want. Now I agree with you, that if Company A doesn't agree, they don't have to buy it. But in this case the FCC is requiring (which is probably a better choice of words over 'forcing') the purchaser, whoever it may be, to perform certain actions.


RE: Am I wrong?
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 5:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here the FCC is the only seller, and there's only one product. They have a complete monopoly, and thus are able to demand whatever they want.


Like I said, they have done without this spectrum for 60+ years, why is it all of a sudden something they HAVE to have? The truth is, they don't, they just want it. They can still use the same old spectrum they have been using for years if they don't like the terms.


RE: Am I wrong?
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 6:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They can still use the same old spectrum they have been using for years if they don't like the terms.
Different frequencies have different advantages and disadvantages. Saying that they're all the same, or that every task can be done just as effectively on one frequency vs any other is simply false. The two biggest factors for wireless Internet access would likely be range, and ability to penetrate buildings.


RE: Am I wrong?
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 6:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Different frequencies have different advantages and disadvantages. Saying that they're all the same, or that every task can be done just as effectively on one frequency vs any other is simply false. The two biggest factors for wireless Internet access would likely be range, and ability to penetrate buildings.


And? Current wireless frequencies are 2.4 and 5GHZ. Lower frequencies don't attenuate as easy, higher frequencies do but the 5GHZ has the joy of being on it's own for the most part from other devices, unlike 2.4. Looks like they cover both bases with the 2.4 and the 5GHZ ranges, don't you think? They can already do wireless just fine on 2.4GHZ.


RE: Am I wrong?
By ebakke on 12/11/2008 11:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
From what I had read, the assumption is that the 2.1GHz frequencies they're auctioning off would be used with WiMax and yield a range of approximately 3.5 miles vs 2.4GHz/5GHz WiFi range of ~300 feet.

I'm no expert in this area, but after looking into it a bit more I think you're right. I don't see why WiMax couldn't be implemented in the 2.4 or 5 GHz frequencies.


RE: Am I wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/12/2008 12:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see why WiMax couldn't be implemented in the 2.4 or 5 GHz frequencies.
From a sheer technical perspective, WiMax can easily operate from tens of Ghz down to a few hundred Mhz. But the problem is that 2.4 and 5 Ghz are unlicensed spectrum, and very crowded at that. If you put a long-range, high-power protocol like WiMax into those bands, you're going to have interference and allocation issues.


RE: Am I wrong?
By ebakke on 12/12/2008 10:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the information/clarification.


Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By Mitch101 on 12/11/2008 2:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
A free internet can mean

Possibly no more phone companies because with IP based phones or netmeeting and you could eliminate the phone companies.

Bandwidth Cap - LOL not on my internet.

Significantly reduced cost of internet connection as most low bandwidth people could live with the free connection.

Sure there are down sides Quality/Speed but I am thinking positive or possibilities.




RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By CSMR on 12/11/2008 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that is a potentially very big advantage.
But the system has to be cell-phone friendly. Whatever system they used would have to allow a very low power always-on connection, same connection settings across the country so your device keeps working when you travel, guarantee a level of QOS, and ideally pass location to 911. They could easily mess this up and nullify the advantage of internet-phone communication convergence.

If they don't make things easy for cell phones, then the ip phone situation doesn't change. (A few more people will have internet but these aren't even the people that will be early adopters of ip phones.)


RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By Mitch101 on 12/11/2008 3:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Any PDA with Wifi could do it

or something like this would become more main stream instead of McDonald and Coffee houses.

Belkin SKYPE Wi-Fi Handset
The Belkin Wi-Fi Phone for Skype doesn't require a PC and will work anywhere in the world where you have secured or open access to a WiFi network.Any home, office, cafe, or municipal wireless access point that does not require browser-based authentication will do.Pre-loaded with Skype software and featuring the same Skype interface, the Belkin Wi-Fi Phone is ready to use with any wireless network.To make a call, simply use the intuitive on-screen color menu to locate your contact and view their online availability-exactly like you use Skype today.The Wi-Fi Phone is Skype-certified, which means that it adheres to all Skype's requirements to ensure that your Wi-Fi Phone experience is just like it is on your PC.


RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By CSMR on 12/11/2008 6:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Wi-fi is problematic because of power consumption. It drains power fast and for that reason is normally turned off when the phone is in standby. The connection needs to be always on so you can receive calls. WiMax may be better in this regard; haven't seen numbers though.


RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By CSMR on 12/11/2008 6:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, by "the phone" I meant any typical smartphone.


RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By Valdora on 12/11/2008 3:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think ANYONE is looking at the big picture or even understand what this technology will do. Before you start spouting lies like it will cost tax payer money I suggest you read-up on the technology and how it works. http://www.wirelessinnovationalliance.org/ is a good place to start.

I don't think anyone here has grasped what free easy to access internet anytime, anywhere from any device will do to our economy. Looking for a local restaurant or retailer? Loggin and find them with step by step directions and their website. Hear a song you like while walking through the mall? Log on and use software to find and download the song. Your friend mentions a book/product/etc find it instantly and where to buy it.

This would STIMULATE the economy because people would receive instant gratification. In addition to economic gains it would help schools, public libraries, non-profits, businesses, emergency response, you, me, ALL AMERICANS.

Having the internet and the services provided anywhere at anytime for no cost will help this country in so many ways. It will encourage those companies that are currently overcharging us for lackluster service/quality/speed to create business models that offer real VALUE for their service. As it stands right now america is way behind Asia and Europe in over all internet quality.

Any down side to free internet for everyone is totally outweighed by the benefits. Which is why there are tons of major organizations (except your local phone/cable/cell phone companies) supporting this technology.


RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By Mitch101 on 12/11/2008 3:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think your replying to the wrong thread?

You lost me at
quote:
Before you start spouting lies like it will cost tax payer money


RE: Free Internet doesnt stop there.
By Valdora on 12/11/2008 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I'm new to the website and it's layout -- sorry =(


By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 4:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This would STIMULATE the economy because people would receive instant gratification.


God forbid people work for anything right?


By lagomorpha on 12/11/2008 8:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Significantly reduced cost of internet connection as most low bandwidth people could live with the free connection."

If anything it sounds more like that would increase the cost of personal internet connections. If the low bandwidth people use the free connection instead of subsidizing the bandwidth of the high bandwidth users, it would leave only high bandwidth users on private connections. This means ISPs would have to purchase more bandwidth per person.

Personally I don't have much faith in the government creating a system that isn't unreliable, needlessly slow, and much more expensive than originally planned. If anything the low cost of nettops and spread of free internet to an increasingly large number of starbucks and mcdonalds should be able to give 99.99% of the population that wants it internet access long before the government is able to set up a workable system.


Internet Access
By rosey1 on 12/11/2008 2:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
I would like to see everyone have access to the internet. Just like radio and TV.

Or maybe like heat, water and lights.

Seems like a "no brainer" to me.

Hard to believe that our outgoing administration is apposed to it. Maybe they are still looking for WMD and do not care about the rest of us paying the bills.

Mike




RE: Internet Access
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:14:39 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, everyone should have all those things for free. Everyone should have free phones and cars and vacations and …

Then everyone would have everything for free and no one would have to work for a living and we could all sit in a completely, wonderfully stagnant society until a week later when all the food runs out because nobody is working to grow it, all the heating oil runs out because nobody is working to pump it, and all the citizens have to go out and hunt/gather their own food, and collect there own firewood to keep warm, etc. As time goes on this horribly barbaric system will morph into a system of specialized trade where one person works at something they are specialized in and trades that service to another person for work done in something they are specialized in doing… After many hundreds of years, we can be right back where we are now…

But yeah, you’re right. The president is wrong for not wanting to give everyone, everything.

-Suntan


RE: Internet Access
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 3:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, everyone should have all those things for free. Everyone should have free phones and cars and vacations and …


I've heard that somewhere before, just can't think of where.... oh yeah, that's in Obama's economic plan, Karl Marx sure would be proud.


RE: Internet Access
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I think when they finally get fully functioning AI and robots doing all the work, I'm pretty sure communism would work really well, since we won't need laborers per say. Oh to dream, ha. Seems like the natural progression though, eventually we do nothing and have all we need. Isn't that what all this automation was for in the first place?


RE: Internet Access
By Valdora on 12/11/2008 3:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
How is giving away cars, homes, money, etc even related to everyone in America being able to log into the internet anytime, anyplace with any device for free?

This will help our economy, the money from adds, purchases, new technology, etc etc etc will boost sales in every sector.

Everyone will benefit from this -- Rich, Poor, Middle Class, Businesses, non-profits, government...

This isn't giving away something like a car... this will revolutionize the way we do almost everything on a daily basis. The only major companies/organizations that oppose this are Cell Phone/Cable/Telephone/ISPs.

Look up who supports this technology -- Microsoft, Apple, Google, Dell, SUN, HP, Freepress, Motorola, Public Knowledge, Technet, Comptia, ETC ETC ETC


RE: Internet Access
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 4:04:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only major companies/organizations that oppose this are Cell Phone/Cable/Telephone/ISPs.


Because they are the ones who have to pay for it, they are the ones losing business.

quote:
Look up who supports this technology -- Microsoft, Apple, Google, Dell, SUN, HP, Freepress, Motorola....


Not one of them is interested in providing it for free, they support it because it would make money for them.

 

Using those examples is like suggesting that if we were to build a new highway system but not pay the contractors to build it. OF COURSE the asphalt/concrete companies think its a good idea, and OF COURSE the contractors think it's a bad idea. Why should either of them think differently?


RE: Internet Access
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 4:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is giving away cars, homes, money, etc even related to everyone in America being able to log into the internet anytime, anyplace with any device for free?


Baby steps. We're already giving away money for free in these "economic stimulus" packages that give "tax rebates"(welfare checks) to those who don't pay taxes.

quote:
This will help our economy, the money from adds, purchases, new technology, etc etc etc will boost sales in every sector.


I seriously doubt people who want to purchase things over the internet do not have the means to do so. And what new technology? Internet. Exists. Internet on phones. Exists. This will merely expand existing technology.

And why shouldn't cell, cable, phone, and internet companies oppose this? The government is trying to price them out of the market. How do you compete with free? You can't.

Hopefully it will all be a moot point. Hopefully Bush will get this retarded restriction removed. And if he doesn't, I doubt any company is going to buy the spectrum with that kind of restriction on it.


RE: Internet Access
By Hulk on 12/11/2008 4:05:12 PM , Rating: 3
Suntan,

You are smart. But you will never convince people with logic when the people you try to convince substitute knee jerk reactions in place of logic.

Everytime you pin one of these "knee jerkers" into a corner they will just change the subject. These are the people that float through life screaming at the very people that protect their right to scream. They don't get it. And they won't until something really bad happens.


doesnt make sense
By kattanna on 12/11/2008 2:07:31 PM , Rating: 4
if a person can afford the rent for the home, AKA they are not homeless, the computer to use the internet and the electricity to power it.. why then can they not afford a $9.95 a month dial-up connection?

or $30 for a decent, compared to dial-up, dsl connection?

i call.. bullshit




RE: doesnt make sense
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 2:18:45 PM , Rating: 4
You can get a slow DSL connection for $10-20 a month these days. It'll be faster than dialup too.


RE: doesnt make sense
By Suntan on 12/11/2008 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
I live in zip code 55044. Where can I get broadband of any sort for $10 a month? I’d love to here it because I would jump on it in a second.

-Suntan


RE: doesnt make sense
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 3:18:02 PM , Rating: 3
Qwest appears to offer 1.5Mbps DSL for $14.95 a month in your area.


RE: doesnt make sense
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 4:29:50 PM , Rating: 3
If you live in zip code 55044 you do not have a suntan, despite your sig.


wakeup
By wakeuppeople on 12/11/2008 2:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why people keep saying "taxpayer money" when the agreement clearly states that the winner of the auction has to provide the national wi-fi as s stipulation of gaining the frequencies. This would not be taxpayer money, but instead, the business' responsibilty, money of which they will definitely make up with such valuable frequencies. The Bush Administration opposes this for commercial interests - so businesses can get the frequencies without having to provide such a service for free - not because of the conservative view on taxation, as there would be no taxation for it.




RE: wakeup
By wakeuppeople on 12/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: wakeup
By svenkesd on 12/11/2008 2:31:48 PM , Rating: 4
Q: Who benefits from a wealthy corporation?

A: Stock holders, employees, suppliers, distributors, construction, government (taxes), overpaid CEOs/exectutives.

I am for all of these except the last one.

They are not monopolizing the internet. If they charge an "arm and a leg" nobody will buy the service.


RE: wakeup
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 2:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
People keep saying "taxpayer money" because any company that wins the auction and is forced to setup this service is guaranteed to lose money. It's a business model that has resulted in nothing but failure. As a result, when this company files its taxes, they report those losses as business expenses and ultimately pay less in taxes, which means that the rest of the country (err, taxpayers) has to make up that difference.

Also, this service would tie up large amounts of capital that the company could otherwise be investing in research or business developments that are far more likely to be profitable (and therefore result in the company paying more taxes and easing the burden on the rest of the taxpayers)


RE: wakeup
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 2:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Easy fix, don't buy it.


RE: wakeup
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 3:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Easy fix, don't buy it.


Yep, which is EXACTLY the problem. This ridiculous requirement is probably going to scare away almost all companies, including ones that may have great plans for this slice of the spectrum. We could be denying ourselves some wonderful device or technology because we're trying to find a way to give services away for free.

What if the first cell phone providers were told that if they want to use their portion of the spectrum, they had to provide a phone to everyone in their area (or even just provide free phone service)? The mobile phone technology would have never taken off. We'd still be using landlines for everything... though it would be nice to drive without being cut off by somebody on their phone haha.


RE: wakeup
By Gzus666 on 12/11/2008 3:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
Then, much like any free market, no one buys it and they are forced to change their price/terms to sell their product (spectrum). Still that free market philosophy.


Replace the telcos
By JonnyDough on 12/11/2008 3:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really care what happens. What I'd like to see is the evil telcos get shut down and replace their lines with cable for VOIP. Bringing broadband internet with VOIP to the masses should be the first goal, who cares how it's done?

The government should reduce taxation on new cable lines put in to rural areas, which would not only prompt new jobs for communication companies, but give better internet speeds to the masses.




RE: Replace the telcos
By mvpx02 on 12/11/2008 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that'd be fantastic to bring down Ma Bell & all the telecom providers... until they get replaced by the Cable providers that now have a monopoly on regional hard-wire tv, internet and phone systems.

You know, we could also completely get rid of crime if we put everyone in the country in jail.

When you get to Eutopia, please email me with directions so I can find it too.


RE: Replace the telcos
By JonnyDough on 12/11/2008 9:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, nobody can deny that AT&T and the government are interlaced. The FCC definitely plays favorites. You are right. Sadly, cable providers are no better. However, cable provides faster internet, voip, and television. What do the telecos with their outdated lines offer? Little.


RE: Replace the telcos
By FITCamaro on 12/12/2008 8:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
Who care how its done huh? So lets just enslave several hundred thousand people and have them work to do it for free. You said you didn't care.

You know what will bring more things to the masses? Get the government OUT of it. Not more deeply embedded into it. Get rid of the mandated monopolies that the GOVERNMENT has imposed. Then anyone can build lines in an area and offer service if it makes financial sense for them to do so. Verizon wants to roll out FIOS to the entire country. Can it do it? No. Why? The GOVERNMENT.

You idiots always blame companies for this crap when it is the government's fault the situation exists.


BULL
By wwwebsurfer on 12/11/2008 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 1
I REFUSE to pay for someone to check YouTube, MySpace or Facebook on my tax dime. I already pay for it - AT THE LIBRARY... IN SCHOOLS... and probably while they should be getting a real education but are on the web instead.

Free internet for everyone is just plain stupid. I'll support building more libraries with free internet IN said libraries, but never, EVER, will I just hand out free internet when everyone else has to pay top dollar for it.




RE: BULL
By Valdora on 12/11/2008 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 3
Bull,

You have no idea how the technology works or will be funded. Don't post blatant lies like this. Read about the technology and what it will do for education, emergency responders, business, and citizens like you and be before you oppose it.


RE: BULL
By MadMan007 on 12/12/2008 9:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hey moron, if it's available for free it would be FREE TO YOU as well. derdeder...


Bush is rich some of us are not.
By ProFCCProposal on 12/11/2008 6:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
I am all for FCC plan for Free Internet. The internet may not be a necessity in the lower 48 but it is so here in Alaska. Doing business through the internet like shopping for a car, managing your bank account online, Doing University school work on Blackboard at UAA, Filling out Scholarships, Financial Aid, Federal Tax Returns, etc., would be very difficult to accomplish in a short time using only a bycile which is my prymary mode of transportation. And riding a bike here in Alaska takes a lot of effort. ACS charges me around $80.00 a month and I may have to stop using it soon since last year income for me was $0 and i had to spend at UAA more money than expected but it was worth it. Of the 3 classes I took, I got 3 A's. Bush is rich I am not.




RE: Bush is rich some of us are not.
By Ringold on 12/11/2008 8:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush is rich I am not.


Randomly bringing up class warfare tends to discredit an entire otherwise valid argument. Also indicates the termination of critical brain function by repeating left-wing propaganda. You needn't stoop to that level.

However, I can see the Alaska argument. Big land area, sparse population through a lot of the state. Fair enough. But why should Florida citizens pay for your internet via federal income taxes? Or people from Wyoming? Etc. How about Alaska take some of its oil revenue and Alaska take care of Alaskans on a purely local issue? We have separate levels of government for a reason.


Partial availability
By fikzuki on 12/11/2008 2:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the winner of the auction uses a portion of it to provide the free nationwide internet access


States right there that a portion will be used for the free access... who is to say that only 25% of the bandwidth will be used whilst the other 75% will be used at a charged rate with a better service. That way, they can make thier money while still offering a free service.




Pro-competition Internet
By DM0407 on 12/11/2008 8:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The goal is to provide internet access to Americans who either can’t afford broadband access or don’t want to pay for it.


Sounds like me!

But seriously, if they provide half decent speeds it may put pressure on the ISP's to adapt or die. Maybe it would be 256kps, but 256k/$0 sounds better then 5mbs/$65 to many casual users.




By PresidentThomasJefferson on 12/12/2008 4:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
It WON'T BE PAID BY TAXPAYERS.

ALL IT IS DOING IS REPLACING THE ANALOG TV BROADCAST SIGNAL (SLATED TO BE STOPPED IN 2009) WITH WI-FI ..and like like broadcast TV, it'll be free & advertiser supported (like watching Heroe's online, u get a 15-sec commercial every 15 minutes --better than TV's 2-5 min commercials every 15 minutes)

Entire city of MountainView already has free Wi-Fi --very conveneinent --and it's successful there (it's run by Google)




Free internet makes a lot of sense
By bernardl on 12/12/2008 9:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever the political directions, I think we all agree that countries need to provide infrastructure and make sure that all citizens have fair access to a reasonable level of performance in the process.

Considering the world we live in, internet is de facto as important as sidewalks.

Cheers,
Bernard




01-20-2009
By Lord 666 on 12/11/08, Rating: -1
Free and Bush?
By SlipDizzy on 12/11/08, Rating: -1
Bush administration...
By Vim on 12/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bush administration...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 1:45:58 PM , Rating: 5
Is correct. The government has no right to spend taxpayer money to provide its less fortunate citizens with free internet.


RE: Bush administration...
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 1:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nor should it be able to mandate to a company wanting to pay for something that it must give away a service for free.

No one WANTS to pay for broadband. But we have to because it costs money. Infrastructure isn't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Now if Google or some other company wants to offer free internet funded by ad revenue, they're free to do so. But to be forced to do it is another matter entirely.


RE: Bush administration...
By 1337cookie on 12/12/2008 9:13:12 PM , Rating: 1
"the winner of the auction uses a portion of it to provide the free nationwide internet access."

Where does it say that taxpayer dollars will be used? Whoever buys it will provide it. The FCC gets money to do whatever they do... You dont pay a cent.

Even if you were paying, it would be nothing in comparison to 80% of the bullshit taxpayer dollars are spent on.


RE: Bush administration...
By Moishe on 12/11/2008 3:08:22 PM , Rating: 5
Read the quote and then tell me how they fail.
quote:
"The (Bush) administration believes that the (airwaves) should be auctioned without price or product mandate. The history of FCC spectrum auctions has shown that the potential for problems increases in instances where licensing is overly prescriptive or designed around unproven business models."


The article headline is sensationalism and not true. The current administration is NOT against free internet access. What it IS against is selling a portion of the spectrum with a price or product mandate.

The administration doesn't care what the spectrum is being used for. It opposes any price or product mandated auction. The quote also gives the reason behind the opposition.

Far as I can tell, they're simply saying, we don't agree with this, and here is why. Shane turned that into an attack on something every poor schmuck wants... free wireless internet.


RE: Bush administration...
By protogenoi on 12/11/2008 7:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm...
We all ready spend tax dollars on free internet.....
It's called the library.


RE: Bush administration...
By Ananke on 12/11/2008 8:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
The D-portion of the spectrum was ALREADY auctioned with very similar stipulation, but nobody wanted it. Instead Verizon and ATT bought everything else, spent 20 billion in licenses, and promised sometimes in future to build wireless network. Of course, if they capture the cost of the license through increase of the current service price, they will not need to build and offer anything. Thus, our telecommunication free market just brought to ALL of us higher ISP bills, higher phone bills, and effectively lack of access to any possible new competitor for at least a decade :). There is your explanation why telcos need to increase their service reveniews at higher pace than the normally required rate of capital return for this sector up to now. That's why we see $30 additional mandatory fee with every iPhone sold, and 25 cent instead of 1 for each SMS sent.

Failing back from the competition may put us at the position of native american indians compared to technologicly advanced settlers, i.e. unnatural extinguishment. So, please think before opposing a bright idea, especially if it doesn't cost you anything personally.

Btw, my English is not native, yet I still can use my math skills as corporate financial advisor :), thus the telcos reveniew explanation above. Finance is not engineering, it is not the same logic


RE: Bush administration...
By Chipper Smoltz DT on 12/12/2008 4:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yup I agree with Moishe, the headline seems contradictory with what the current government really wants to happen.

Besides Wi-Fi internet is not that reliable, first of all adverse weather conditions could affect it's good performance which is only one among some of its disadvantages, another one is interference coz it's an RF signal. But it should really be not that expensive as there would be no need for wires and all the other stuff but wireline internet is better. Investing in wireline just costs too much, but most likely if the government were to provide wireless internet (since it would be cheaper)... then maybe I hope our government someday would do so also... Hahaha.

Free Internet "Drools"


RE: Bush administration...
By Mastershake256 on 12/12/2008 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
Technically couldn't people just go to the library or to McDonalds to get free internet access?


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki