backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by jimbojimbo.. on Jan 7 at 10:59 AM


Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin  (Source: Maximum PC)

  (Source: Rockstar Games)
The FCC's chief gives the greenlight to end his pursuit of filtering of the internet's red light district

Free national wireless internet certainly sounds like a desirable goal.  Indeed, for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin, the quest to put free internet to policy has been one he has held close to heart.  However, the proposal was mired in questions about the implementation.  Some initially called for the internet to be filtered to prevent minors from "inappropriate" access, but critics later blasted the proposals calls for the free internet to filter out pornography and other offensive materials.

Now in hopes of winning over the measure's detractors, Chairman Martin has given the green light to free browsing of the internet's red light district, dropping provisions for filtering from the proposal.  In an interview with tech blog Ars Technica, Chairman Martin confirmed that partners licensed to provide the service would no longer have to filter the internet.  He also said he has already begun to circulate the new version of his plan.

The FCC has been planning an auction of the 25 MHz portion of the 2.1 GHz spectrum, the 2155 MHz to 2180 MHz band to be particular, in the coming months.  As part of the auction's provisions, telecoms or other parties who buy a piece will have to offer free services on a portion of it.  Previously an additional provision was that the providers must also filter their free service.  The intention was to provide free in-home internet to many across the country who could not otherwise afford it.

After civil liberties groups complained about the filtering, Chairman Martin did a sharp about face.  He says in the new interview, "I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away.  A lot of public interest advocates have said they would support this, but we're concerned about the filter. Well, now there's an item in front of the Commissioners and it no longer has the filter. And I've already voted for it without the filter now. So it's already got one vote."

Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, and the Media Access Project are among the groups who have pledged to support the project if it were to drop its filtering.  These groups have praised the open access provisions, which require providers to allow any wireless device to connect to the service.

The measure still has powerful opponents.  The adjacent spectrum was acquired by T-Mobile USA for $4.2B USD in 2006, and T-Mobile says use of these parts of the 25 MHz section would interfere with transmissions in its own purchase.  The FCC says that its own thorough testing have proven these claims false.

With a new chairman likely incoming with President-elect Barack Obama, Chairman Martin's last chance to pass the measure will be at the Commission's open meeting on January 15.  He is expected to possibly bring the proposal to a vote at this meeting.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What sort of scares me about free internet
By rudy on 1/1/2009 3:40:10 PM , Rating: 4
Is the idea that it may impede internet progress. Many people who could get free internet would take it rather then pay for a higher quality hard line to the house. Then you would have sub par internet widely available and it would cut into the profits of the major ISPs they would no longer have capitol to expand and improve their existing networks.

It may eventually come to a point where I simply do not have any choice to buy a good hard line to my house much like some people have no choice but 56k because their are not enough people in their area to make running a broadband network profitable.

I can't say this is how it will pan out but i sort of liken it to the CRT to LCD transition where the great high performance CRTs where dumped completely in favor of poor performance LCDs and to this day we have almost no choices for a 100 hz refresh on an LCD for gaming.




RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By mmntech on 1/1/2009 4:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
Saying that free public Wifi will impede internet progress is like saying OTA TV impedes cable TV. There will always be people willing to pay for better service. Vary few people use OTA TV exclusively in the United States these days. What it does do is open up the internet to people who otherwise may not be able to afford monthly fees. Since it's becoming such a critical information tool, the government has vested interest in making it available to as many as possible. It's the same thought process that gives you the right to put up a TV aerial on your house regardless of whether you rent or own.

As for monitors, there are plenty of 120hz LCD HDTVs that support 1080p resolutions. They can easily be used as a gaming monitor and offer larger screen sizes. 240hz monitors are on the horizon. However, with LCDs, response time matters more than refresh rate. While CRTs did offer better image quality and near instantaneous response times, they were too bulky, dangerous, and sucked energy like no tomorrow. LCDs won out because they could be easily mounted anywhere. If you need something close, consider a plasma TV or DLP projector.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By cubby1223 on 1/1/2009 4:17:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Saying that free public Wifi will impede internet progress is like saying OTA TV impedes cable TV.

<shakes head>

Cable TV provides hundreds more channels than OTA TV.

On the other hand, a completely open internet through dsl provides no greater access than a completely open free wireless internet.

We all know what the internet is to most people - watching stupid pet videos on youtube. Yes, let's spend all this money on new infrastructure & taxes to open that up to the extremely small few who currently do not have internet access.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By Tsuwamono on 1/1/2009 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 5
128kb DSL VS 5mbps DSL is the same as 5 channels on Rabbit ears VS 500 Channels on Cable.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By FITCamaro on 1/1/2009 7:39:26 PM , Rating: 1
Not really considering that 128 Kbps dsl still gets you access to the same content as 5 Mbps cable. It just takes longer. And for standard internet browsing, 128 kbps dsl is adequate. Larger pages with a lot of dynamic content might be slower to load, but overall its fine. About the only thing it'd suck at is streaming content.


By ice456789 on 1/1/2009 8:00:10 PM , Rating: 3
If the government offered free dial up 56k internet to your house, how many would still purchase high speed? Would the dial up affect advancements in high speed?


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By Motley on 1/1/2009 8:33:23 PM , Rating: 3
You obviously haven't browsed the internet at 128Kbps in a while.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By inighthawki on 1/1/2009 9:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well they have to start somewhere ;) Maybe in time as things get better you'll see faster free internet.


By gamefreak32 on 1/1/2009 9:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
If they implement their infrastructure with fiber optic cable, it will be easy to upgrade.


By ice456789 on 1/2/2009 8:13:40 AM , Rating: 2
What I'm saying is that free, slow internet would definitely serve a purpose (especially when traveling). I would say that probably 90% of the readers of this forum have high speed internet, and would still be willing to pay for it even if a free 'low speed' option were available.


By TThor on 1/5/2009 12:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
cable may have hundreds more channels than OTA TV, but does that mean OTA shrunk, or that cable simply grew?


By jimbojimbo on 1/7/2009 10:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We all know what the internet is to most people - watching stupid pet videos on youtube.
From what I see this is true. Most non-techie people's idea of the internet is Facebook, You-Tube, and Hot-or-Not.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By rudy on 1/1/2009 7:25:45 PM , Rating: 1
All of those 120hz TVs only take a 60hz max signal in they just play the same frame several times or interpolate it form the last one. Absolutely worthless, on top of that most of them have input lag so even if they could display that fast I would still be seeing the image too late. If you know of a TV or monitor that does better please tell me, not that you could even tell from their specs what they mean anyway.

You not knowing about that is exactly my point the noobsumer takes over and it is no longer profitable to deliver a high quality product. So you have to wait 5 or so years before the noobsumer finally starts asking for something better. But in the mean time you have all those years of not being able to buy a good product. The parents controlling the house simply won't care about their kids gaming or the more secure nature of a hard line.

Also I will always be willing to pay for better service but the problem is if 90% of the people in my neighborhood are not then comcast or whoever is not going to bother running a line in or upgrading the current one any more.

Also the USA has a HUGE country you simply can't compare any tiny countries like Korea or Sweden to us when laying down a network. So ya since the US built their internet before anyone else then lots of it is aging and slower but if we get a free wireless signal in most places I am not sure anyone will bother upgrading the lines going to houses. Then we really will have a monopoly cause only Comcast running TV to everyones house will bother keeping their network running.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am wrong but I have a bad feeling I won't be.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/1/2009 11:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Stop comparing CRT monitors with LCD, it is completely different technologies, you can not draw the parallel between CRT refresh rate and LCD refresh rate.
Take a simple test:
Close one eye shaking your head starring at the CRT screen with horizontal scanning frequency of 96 kHz. Do you see flicker? Yes.
Now do the same with a crappy no-brand 60Hz LCD screen. Do you see the same distortion? No.
So in this aspect LCD is superior, color reproduction is indisputably weaker on (cheap TN) LCD screens. What I am really not satisfied with is ages ago accepted standard for video of 24 frames per second, digital filming will inevitably, slowly fix that though.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By rudy on 1/2/2009 1:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I can cause they are the exact same thing how many times a second the the screen is drawn. People falsely think that just cause LCDs do not fade and there for flicker the effect you are describing that it is not important. But when you are watching fast action through gaming or other wise you need to see every frame as true as it can be.

But lets be real the average noobsumer knows nothing of any of this all they know is that its smaller therefore cooler. And as suck the LCD companies just dont seem to get that we need true refresh rates in excess of 100 hz. Otherwise our monsterous machines drawing 300 FPS are useless.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By Etsp on 1/2/2009 2:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
No, they really aren't the same thing. On a CRT the image does not remain visible for the whole duration before refreshes. The picture goes black in between refreshes. This is where the flickering comes into play.

On an LCD, the image doesn't go black, and the pixels don't actually go back to neutral either, not to mention the fact that the backlight is always on, it doesn't flicker with the image.

Now, about your statement with regards to fast action... the eye is only capable of seeing/interpreting about 60fps anyways.... It can detect harmonics and things like that (IE, Flicker) at higher frequencies, which is why some people, like me, hate CRT's at 60 hz.

I loved my CRT, as I had the refresh rate at 75hz minimum, but it was too heavy and was warping my desk, so it had to go.

But in all honesty, if someone were to show you an LCD with 60hz refresh rate and a 120hz refresh rate, showing the same "action scene", you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By someguy123 on 1/2/2009 8:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
this 60fps myth needs to disappear NOW. the eye is not a digital camera. It is not limited by a certain amount of FPS. An increase in frame rate will look smoother to the eye if you compare it to a lower frame rate side by side as long as there is a large enough deviation in frame rate. the limit of frames you can distinguish varies depending on your own personal response time.

that being said, 60fps is more of the ideal fluidity/quality balance as of right now. instead of going higher hz, having 60fps with high detail is the best option right now for visual quality. this does not mean you can't see further, it just means if you can reach that number you'll greatly reduce blurring.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By Etsp on 1/3/2009 12:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well, rather than the eye's limitation, it would be more like the brain's ability to interpret the information that fast.

The air-force has conducted tests on it's pilots, by showing them an image of an aircraft for short durations and having them identify it. The fastest the pilots could identify it was when it was shown for only 1/220th of a second. But what they were recognizing was only an afterimage, the brain certainly wasn't able to interpret what they were seeing that quickly....

Besides, the eyes blur fast moving images anyways...


By SlyNine on 1/4/2009 2:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the brain does all this work to make 60 FPS look smooth, The brain is certainly not limited to it. The fact is the more information you provide the brain the better it will process the data and less time spent on making out the image and adjusting it to your needs.

Look at a badly encoded video at 15 fps, and then look at a great video at 60 fps. Most people would have trouble describing the difference but would be able to tell you that the other looks much different.

You may not realize you can see the difference, but the one at 120 Hz's would still look better at fast motion scenes especially darker scenes, I've done side by side pictures of spinning black lines over white backgrounds at 30,60, and 120 Hz's/fps. Most every one I've shown this test to on my old LCD could tell the difference.

Now its important to make a black line over a white image because that shows the after image doesn't last long enough to make the eye not see the black line, and thus not notice the difference. However inverse the colors and its even more noticeable.

The brain is a hella of a visual processor, the human brain especially, with 1/3 of it dedicated to processing visuals. While in certain circumstances 60 fps may not be noticeable for 30, in others 120 is distinguishable from 60. Add to that the fact that CRT's did have the black frame in between to help clear the retina ( witch was kinda a bonus) and that the blur in LCDs is still noticeable, and the frame does not update faster then 60, CRTs often had a much wider color gamut, MUCH MUCH better support for multiple resolutions. This is comparing CRTs to TODAY'S LCDs, Never mind comparing them back when they ditched CRTs

Personally if my old view sonic didn't break, Id be using it over my 800$ LCD today and I cannot wait until Laser TV technology hits Computer displays. (If ever)


By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/2/2009 9:26:17 AM , Rating: 1
Rudy, you have lumped every possible display characteristics together and made a mess of it. You clearly don't have a clue to distinguish aspects such as, vertical scan rate, frame rate, Cathode ray tube vs Liquid crystal, input lag and so forth.
My advice to you is first read and only then comment on topic of debate.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By JoshuaBuss on 1/2/2009 12:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
actually he's right.. although his explanation of his point is rather weak

as a former hardcore fps player myself I can personally vouch that saying things like "no one can detect the difference between 85hz and 100hz" is simply sticking your head in the sand..

most people who have played fast games for years have no trouble distinguishing between rates up to and even including 200hz.. not because they notice flicker but because they'll notice the subtle difference in the fluidity of the mouse movement and the smoothness of the display while performing fast actions like spinning 180 degrees in a tenth of a second.

during these kinds of maneuvers the difference between 60hz and 120hz can make a gigantic difference in the ability to line up a shot or make a 'twitch shot'.

I played for many years at 120hz on a CRT at 800x600 simply for this fluid response, as did many of my fellow gamers, and one time I got to try 185hz on a special CRT of a friends and it was even better.. I got many more kills than I usually did.

this is where the LCD falls flat on its face to a good CRT.. not because of flicker but because of the lack of quick-repsonse (no input lag) and high refresh rates (greater than 85hz.. preferably 100+)


By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/2/2009 1:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
oh, Jesus! again, you can not apply the same measure of vertical scan rate of CRT to LCD refresh rate, Mathematical Formula can be used though. Again, identical number for CRT of 96,000 does not equal to the same refresh rate of LCD. For human eye 60HZ for liquid crystal display will be perceived as absolute improvement over CRT monitor with numbers as high as 120kHZ. What you spot in fast paced games as not fluent and smooth action is the response time. Response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from black to white and back to black again. By the way, all new decent LCD monitors have excellent response time, CRT monitors with 75kHZ have about 8-15ms, so it's also not the perfection, certainly a bit better than LCD.


By someguy123 on 1/2/2009 8:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, the issue is the response time in gaming. in video, LCDs appear much more fluid than CRTs, but in gaming the extra hz really decreases the motion blur and input delay even if there is screen tearing. 120hz lcds are suppose to be coming around feb/march, so hopefully most video cards will have some means of providing enough bandwidth for 120hz (dual dvi).


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By blowfish on 1/1/2009 4:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
considering that people in the US curently pay more money for slower internet connections than just about anywhere else in the developed world, I hardly think that free wifi would make things any worse.

In the UK, which was always considered to be rip-off central, you can get broadband several times faster than US 1.5Mbps for about the same price.

You can blame it all on the telcom monopolies - not much of a free market for ISP's in the US really. A bit of competition should do a power of good, unless you're a telcom exec.


By joex444 on 1/2/2009 1:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
Actually where I am, Comcast just upped the speeds to 12Mbps for no charge. For $42, yes, this is still a ripoff compared to the UK. Only reason I bothered to post was the 1.5Mbps reference. I don't think any cable companies are offering speeds that low, DSL would.

Just looked up the isp Be, which is offering 8mbps for 13.50GBP = $19.70. And that's unlimited, Comcast has this stupid 250GB limit.


By Etsp on 1/2/2009 2:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
Would you like to trade for their fuel prices to go with their internet prices? :-)


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By LeftSide on 1/1/2009 4:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to disagree, I think people will still be willing to pay for a faster more secure connection, myself included.

On another note, just think of the possibilities of guaranteed internet access. Computer sales will skyrocket, and everyday devices will start including connections to the internet. Just think... TVs, Radios, cars, mp3 players, cell phones, everything could have unlimited access to unlimited amounts of information. It will become standard on everything. Your Thermostat will know the local temperature forecast, and adjust settings for energy savings. Your bed will scan your body temperature for fevers and upload the information to your doctors office. Your refrigerator will know when the milk goes bad and order more from the nearby market. The possibilities are endless...


By Ringold on 1/1/2009 11:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the impact on computer sales will be anything other than negligible. Computer penetration in the US is extremely high; basically those who don't have one are people who don't want one regardless. As for the rest of that, like a refrigerator talking to other devices via the net, you can do the same thing now with any home wifi device. If there was demand for these products, they're well within our ability to manufacture. Their lack of mass market sales suggests to me it falls in the category of "sounds cool, but not worth paying for."

On the other hand, there is a small portion of the population that lives in rural areas not yet effectively served by broadband. It would benefit them. I suppose inner city poor might use it too, but those same inner city poor probably pay a cell phone bill equivalent to what a broadband connection would run them anyway.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By inighthawki on 1/1/2009 5:11:31 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe that will finally give incentive to these ISPs to try and provide on-par service with some of the rest of the world. Compared to say, japan, the US has what can be considered abysmal internet service.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By gamefreak32 on 1/1/2009 9:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt you have been to the more remote parts of Japan. The only part of Japan that has great internet service is the major cities. In the more remote parts of Japan the only internet service that they have is 1.5mbs DSL. I stayed with a family in Iwate and did a speed test on their internet. It is the exact same way it is in the US. The more dense the population is, the better the internet service. Japan just has a majority of people living in major cities with very dense populations, which gives them a higher average internet speed per person.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By inighthawki on 1/1/2009 9:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well I didn't exactly mean everywhere. It would be foolish to say that every square inch of a specific country or place was better. My point being, Japan does HAVE some fantastic internet, beyond most of the extremely high end ISPs in the US give in a decent price range.


By rudy on 1/2/2009 1:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but people like you constantly compare places like that to the US. When in fact it is just as stated a skewed statistic. In the US big cities have very fast internet the only countries that beat us are much smaller and there for can roll out internet to their population much cheaper. And because the US was the frontier internet country we also have the oldest internet where as nearly every other country in the world built their infrastructure later then US so should have faster internet. You dont see a large country like russia, china, brazil or canada having faster speeds then the US.

Currently it is not the greatest but the internet does improve at a steady rate here. I know it will improve in the future as well I am just worried that it will mostly improve on the lower end not the higher end.


By Shlong on 1/1/2009 10:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
Compare the best available commercial internet in Tokyo vs best available commercial internet in New York City and the one in Tokyo is much faster at a comparable price.


By mars777 on 1/1/2009 6:19:32 PM , Rating: 3
When competition is hard you get progress.

I cannot see a better situation to make progress than to put ISPs to battle with free Internet.

Expect prices to fall and speeds to rise.

Or expect ISPs to cease and go bankrupt (not in their interest).

Overall it's a good thing because it will significantly lower margins for ISPs, margins that are outrageous right now. They are currently ripping people off.


By mindless1 on 1/1/2009 10:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, LCDs outperform CRTs in almost every important way except for contrast.

What makes you think you need a 100Hz refresh on an LCD for gaming? You certainly do not. No human being can even perceive 100FPS changes and the whole reason CRTs had higher refresh rates was the flickering inherant in their design - which is not present with LCDs.

I do agree with your other point though, deprofiting the ISP market will lead to hard times, as a lot of people will not pay for broadband anymore if they can get a reasonably fast (compared to dial-up) free service, say around 512Kbps or higher is enough to suit many people.

This is an upside, that if a large % of the population goes with a slower service it will make webmasters stop and think harder about the ridiculous level of bloat on the internet today. We now have 20Mb broadband but have to wait several seconds still for pages to load only because of website design mistakes and that is ridiculous.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By thebeastie on 1/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By MrTeal on 1/1/2009 11:53:35 PM , Rating: 4
Please don't.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By thebeastie on 1/2/2009 3:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's the truth, people emailing in bomb threats via free wireless internet will just be the beginning, kids who want to do that to skip school or adults emailing bomb threats into work to go home early etc, this is open to so many types of a abuse its not funny, Even at this early stage would prefer not to give off evil ideas. The black hats will have a full time never ending picnic with it.

There is NOTHING to stop these kind of abuses and there never will be, don't stick your head in the sand just because you don't like to hear the truth.

The amount of money to police abuse would be endless and far from practical for a "free" internet. There is no way to implement simple limits or anything, even a "GET" request "Sends" data to a web server...

Just because people have simple ideas pop into their heads doesn't mean its a good idea.
The Internet is a very different technology then any thing else and people who try to place analogies to other things and systems are very much likely to be wrong.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By MrTeal on 1/2/2009 11:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
You might have to hold my hand and explain this to me in small steps, but I'm exceedingly confused as to how emailing in bomb threats is so much different with free internet than just using the already available paid internet damn near everyone has access to. For that matter, it's really no different than phoning in bomb threats. I can see possible abuses of the system, depending on how it's implemented; people using it to download illegal software, kiddie porn, things like that. But even things like that could be done going to any college campus, Starbucks, or residential neighborhood with 20 unsecured connections.


By thebeastie on 1/3/2009 12:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
This is still a very easy argument.
When people pay for internet the ISPs know who they are, its not anonymous and can't be abused, commerical ISPs don't like to be abused, its a very important inherent part of their business.

If you phone in a bomb threat you are leaving a easy voice finger print and they will have far many more leads then a email which will have no finger prints what so ever.
Pay phones are always in public areas where lots of people and even cameras are watching.

Most people that phone in bomb threats also use a pay phone since they know that carrying around the a mobile with the phone number on it has a real account and other identifiers to it, they know they would have to throw a good phone away.

I mean why don't they just make all mobile phone networks free, it would quite literally be 1000 times easier idea to implement but they don't do that do they.


RE: What sort of scares me about free internet
By Nik00117 on 1/3/2009 11:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
I enjoy my internet, and i'm more then willling to pay top dollar for it.

I'm sure this internet would be very fast and for basic uses it may be just fine. However for someone like myself who downloads, and games on a normal basis it wouldn't be acceptable to me.

When I shop for ISPs, i'm not looking at the mid grade connections i'm going straight to the top. I mean seriously where I live a mid-grade connection is about 25 euros a month. A top end which is triple the speed is 40 euros. Why go with mid-grade when you get top of the line for less then double and it's triple the value.

This won't hurt ISPs, if anything it may open poeples eyes a bit more to the web therefore resulting in them later wanting higher end internet like many of us enjoy.


By Quiescent on 1/4/2009 9:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're sorely oblivious to how bad internet is in America.

These companies sell you a high speed connection that you won't get because they oversell the connection and have a poorly laid out and old infrastructure to make overselling even worse.

The ADSL companies are cheap with "6mbit connections" topping at maybe 1mbit if you're lucky. These connections are usually with a 2 year CONTRACT too! And you end up paying $20-$30 for this connection, but never EVER reach the advertised speed you're paying for!

While the cable companies give you that high speed internet connection, say something like 3mbit, and make you pay $50 for it. But still, their infrastructure is still not as good either, so you may never reach that 3mbit connection at all. You're not in a contract, but it still hurts, because you're paying more and more every year for this same connection. And then these ISPs usually do something like limit your connection intentionally when you use your internet connection to it's full potential. So you end up paying $50 for a connection you can never use anyways!

If we get free internet, this WILL drive the commercial ISPs insane, and then they WILL offer better speeds while jacking down the price. This is what happened with TV, it will surely happen with internet.


By Quiescent on 1/4/2009 4:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
I guess these ISP companies better start using their money TO upgrade infrastructure, instead of charging us (I have Cox Communications) $50 for a 3mbit down and 786k up connection, then limiting it when you "use too much bandwidth", because if this free internet is going to be as good as regular/DTV is going to be, then Cox is going to say good bye to my business!


By aminor on 1/5/2009 3:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
There's a good chance it will do just the opposite. If want good broadband in the US for your home, you probably have 1, maybe 2 different companies you can go to. Basically an oligopoly that's not likely to change on its own. The telecom companies don't really have much incentive to change as it is because of this. In fact now they are taking advantage of customers by imposing caps and interfering with p2p traffic.

What better way to shake things up then to have them compete against Uncle Sam. The companies that want to get the niche customers concerned with superfast internet, will have to come up with a better product to sell.

Plus FREE internet, come on.


If you can't afford internet access....
By AntiM on 1/1/2009 8:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The intention was to provide free in-home internet to many across the country who could not otherwise afford it.


If you can't afford Internet access you probably can't afford a computer. If somebody gave you one would you know how to use it? Would it be rendered useless in less than a day with viruses and malware? Computers need to be maintained, who will do that?

However, as long as it doesn't use taxpayer money, I don't have any issue with it. Will it help some poor people become un-poor ? I'm sure some disadvantaged children will benefit from it, at least I would hope so.

How do these companies expect to recoup their investment in such an infrastructure? It would be massively expensive to build and maintain.




RE: If you can't afford internet access....
By inighthawki on 1/1/2009 8:31:20 PM , Rating: 5
Thats not true at all. In my house, i have several extra computers which could easily support XP + SP3 or vista, both with fine security for even the most novice user. If my grandmother wanted to have an email, for example, i could give her one of the computers and a free net connection could keep her in touch with things. In fact, one of the reason my grandma doesn't have a computer is not really because of the computer itself but she doesn't want to pay for the internet which she will use seldomly. The cheapest ISP in her area offers a $20/month service, which isn't something you will want to pay unless you check your email more than once per week.

It won't make poor people not poor, but will surely give an extra advantage to those in the "lower" middle class who barely afford the computer itself.

Also, might I add, it will definitely make internet access easier for "on-the-go"


By taber on 1/2/2009 1:39:25 AM , Rating: 2
Good point about the internet access on the go being nice. I'd suddenly have a reason to buy an itouch so I'd have unfiltered internet at work. Just to check my email of course.

Another interesting note is that, depending on the implementation, this could create a major headache for some security issues, like the RIAA and MPAA trying to track people down...


By tharik on 1/2/2009 9:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
You should really consider Linux.

Linux Mint is a very good version for people who grown accustomed to XP. It is much more secure and much easier to install/reinstall if something does trash the system. You would need about an hour to load/reload Mint versus a day with XP.


By Chocobollz on 1/3/2009 12:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would it be rendered useless in less than a day with viruses and malware?


eg. Skynet..


"Free" internet is nothing but BS
By cubby1223 on 1/1/2009 4:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is free. We will be paying through the nose in taxes for our neighbors to surf porn. And like other posts said, it screws with competition - it's damn hard to compete dollar-wise against free. It's also damn hard to motivate a company to improve the quality of free service. I just can't imagine this will actually be beneficial to anyone.




RE: "Free" internet is nothing but BS
By Lexda on 1/1/2009 7:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because OpenOffice has completely displaced MS Office as the de facto office suite, just because it's free. And it's a shame that Gmail, Chrome, and Google Docs are such crap because they're free; I really wish Google could find some motivation to improve them.

Bottom line is, free stuff helps competition. It'll let the ISPs know there's a better, easier option out there, and they'll have to drastically improve services to hang on to customers who are just fine with 100kbps down to watch YouTube.

I can't see ubiquitous wireless replacing most land connections anytime soon. However, blanket internet will provide its own benefits, such as the massive integration described above (and it might convince MS that Zune/XBox integration is really a good idea!). The only people hurt by this will be local Starbucks; instead of having to go to the coffee shop to do your stuff, you can get basic internet anywhere.


By inighthawki on 1/1/2009 7:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're actually missing a lot of the point. Since this is simply internet access, it's the same content, just a different speed. A better comparison would be a free low end computer vs a high end computer that you must pay for. Sure one of them is free, and suitable for many people's needs, but many would pay the price, maybe even a premium, for the better quality, especially depending on what they use it for.


By Screwballl on 1/2/2009 10:16:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing is free. We will be paying through the nose in taxes for our neighbors to surf porn.


That is exactly how it will happen. I say the porn blocks stay in place or sell it off to a private company with the "free access" and "no porn" requirements, so that the private company shoulders the cost, not our taxpayer dollars.

As for the rest of your post, you are actually backwards on that:

quote:
And like other posts said, it screws with competition - it's damn hard to compete dollar-wise against free. It's also damn hard to motivate a company to improve the quality of free service. I just can't imagine this will actually be beneficial to anyone.


Has the free OpenOffice or Google Docs replaced Microsoft Office or made Microsoft improve on their product?
Has the free Ubuntu linux replaced Microsoft Windows?
Has AVG and other free anti-virus programs shut down Symantec/Norton and Mcafee?

No, it is forcing both sides to improve their products which ends up better for us as the consumer.


By Rodney McNaggerton on 1/1/2009 3:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
But that was around the time that I was doing a lot of crack, when I came off the stuff I realized what a misguided idea that was. Have we lost focus here? What would be the point of this project? Please Dailytech address this in your articles and try to make the answer a little more transparent.




By dflynchimp on 1/1/2009 4:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
bottom line of the article: "boobies = more support"

I'm whole heartedly for the advent of unfiltered universal free internet, but all of this is going to cost money. Any time you hear of this sort of major infrastructure overhaul someone is going to find a way to skim a quick buck during the inplementation.


Thank God
By KnightCG on 1/1/2009 3:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
His wife must have caught him.




RE: Thank God
By DarkElfa on 1/2/2009 10:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
I can only imagine that this thing will have heavy filters on it for piracy protection and most likely won't be very fast. I'll stick to private.


VOIP
By nonameo on 1/1/2009 10:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone thought of the VOIP implications here? Free nationwide wifi = basically phone service everywhere, depending on the quality of the connection. I forsee T-mobile somehow trying to restrict this. Probably through bandwidth.




RE: VOIP
By sc3252 on 1/2/2009 5:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the headlines of free wifi everywhere.

AT&T is going to hate this thing, they will probably try and stop it at all costs since it would mean the end of cellphones and money from phones services as we and they know it.

The big question I have is how its going to work? Will they have giant towers everywhere? If they have towers everywhere how will it get paid for? Also who will pay for that humongous bandwidth bill they will have from it?


Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 1/1/2009 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 3
You repeatedly refer to this as "the 25mhz spectrum". It's actually a 25 mhz section of the 2.1 Ghz spectrum.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki