FCC chairman dreams of free mobile internet for all Americans

Just over a year ago, we were all making bitter beer faces at FCC chairman Kevin Martin for not going along with a delightful sounding "free internet" plan. Now, it seems the main man's tune has changed. During a recent interview, Martin stated that there was a "social obligation in making sure everybody could participate in the next generation of broadband services because, increasingly, that's what people want." He's reportedly looking to attach a free mobile broadband requirement to the AWS-3 spectrum that's set to be auctioned next year, which would require the winner to allocate 25% for gratis access. 'Course, we wouldn't get our hopes us for this to actually go down like it surely is playing out in your mind just now, but we won't fault you for dreamin'.

[Via phonescoop]

[Randy @ Aug 20th 2008 6:49PM]

And I dream of a wife that looks like Angelina Jolie....

[Arley @ Aug 20th 2008 7:38PM]

LOL Nice one

[nerdtalker @ Aug 20th 2008 11:53PM]

No offense to Randy, but both of those dreams have about the same likelihood of coming true, at least for the time being.

[chibleylulz @ Aug 21st 2008 1:39AM]

Nerdtalker: whoosh!

[Simon @ Aug 20th 2008 6:54PM]

Blah Blah Blah....

We live in a very productive economy (not right now, but in theory). Meaning that free = minimal if any profits. No profits = no attention.

Think of Net Zero. Good idea, but not realistically viable. Also as a consumer, you lose alot of "power" when you undertake free services, there are always catches.

Captialism is good, just lower the prices and I'd be happy.

[Dylan @ Aug 20th 2008 10:15PM]

Dude, even in theory your economy is completely based on being able to get services and goods from an extremely cheap source ie the asian countries, without that, or if and when your country pisses them off the states is completely screwed and will have to do "an iraq" and find a way to "save their people from _____" (take what you want). Also with regards to the rest of your post, Americans don't seem to broken up on losing rights and with your economy as it is now, i wouldn't scoff at free anything, god knows walmart is the retail jesus to the US and since it doesn't look like your economy will be improving anytime within the next 5 years they may be the next American prada. If there was truly free wireless internet or even half true wireless internet I bet alot of people would subscribe.

[Bob Jenkins @ Aug 20th 2008 6:59PM]

Uhh, old-ish news. The Interview's the only thing new, and it completely ignores the fact that Martin wants this Internet to be strictly censored for smut and pornographic material.

[phanbouy @ Aug 20th 2008 7:38PM]

you have an authoritative name

[thedesolate1 @ Aug 20th 2008 10:15PM]

Smut peddling is what mobile internet was made for. Now watch pr0n while on the go! useful during long lines or while driving.

[Jamma @ Aug 20th 2008 7:03PM]

How about free home internet first?

[sonicwind @ Aug 20th 2008 7:09PM]

I don't want "free" internet.

1. I don't want any more poor, uneducated people posting illiterate and anti-social information on the Internet.
2. I'd rather pay for fast and unfiltered/monitored Internet.

Internet access is not a human right, it's a privilege, like driving a car on public roads. It should have some level of cost and ability requirement.

[CraigJ @ Aug 20th 2008 7:21PM]

I mostly agree, but your argument needs work. A better analogy is driving on the road is free, (well, not really, since the road is paid for by taxes), but you have to buy a car and put gas in it.

Likewise, in this case the internet access if free, but you have to buy a device (car) and power it (electricity)

[dcny @ Aug 20th 2008 7:41PM]

How about this than

1 Free internet / monitored for everything just above dial up speeds
2 Pay Internet fast unfiltered/monitored internet

Also All poor arent uneducated just as all rich arent educated

Internet access is not a human right, it's a privilege ; true however as more and more stuff becomes do it over the internet its the only way you will be excluding the poorer classes. Example lots of jobs only accept applications via there websites nowdays. What if you live in the country/middle of nowhere, where internet is hard to come by Libraries no where to be found, you can only get dial up or if you can afford it satelite should they suffer because of where they live or cant afford internet.

[bernardino @ Aug 20th 2008 7:44PM]

I agree with you that the internet is not a privilege, but I disagree with your analogy. Driving a car requires tests and a license because you can kill someone with a car. A better analogy would be over-the-air television which is free and profitable.

If you keep the poor and uneducated from accessing the internet by deciding against supplying a free medium which can be profitable, given the television example, then you are increasing the chances that these people will stay poor and uneducated. That means they'll be poor and uneducated when they are living with you in a neighborhood, driving on the same streets at you, shopping at the same stores at you, voting in the same elections as you, etc Instead, give them the opportunity to use the internet as a learning resource. Sure, some people may use it for an unproductive reason, but if at least one person can pull themselves out of being poor and uneducated thanks to a free medium for the internet, then I think it's worth it.

Lastly, you'll always have the option to buy fast, unfiltered internet, this will simply be there as a basic medium for those who have not been blessed with the same opportunities as the rest of us.

[JViz @ Aug 20th 2008 7:52PM]

Isn't free internet at the public library enough? If you live out in the middle of nowhere without any means of transportation, you probably won't have the means to access the free internet either.

[scott @ Aug 20th 2008 10:49PM]

i've seen and met plenty of rich people that are dumb as hell..what's sad is that with their money, comes power, which brings along false information. You end up with celebrities who influence things like politics, but you know they don't know a damn thing about it.

[Rob @ Aug 20th 2008 7:11PM]

Typical politicians with their "pie in the sky" bs. Sure, I want free internet. Also, while you're at it, how about free electricity and water. What they need to do is loosen up their chocking grip on our wallets. They tax us for everything in our lives. They tax us more than once on the same money. They tax our income, then they tax whatever we do with that money.

[7on @ Aug 20th 2008 9:03PM]

Sure, we can stop paying taxes...

But then who will pay our teachers? Police? Firemen?
Who will pay for the road repairs? Parks? Libraries?

I say the more taxes the better (as long as we get equal services for the money).

[Dan Katz @ Aug 20th 2008 7:11PM]

I'm just hoping that if they make a movie about this guy that they hire Dave Foley of Kids In The Hall fame

[Homeboy @ Aug 20th 2008 7:11PM]

And tonight at 03:45AM Jessica Alba will ride through window on a white unicorn reaching out to me with a carbon fiber Voodoo Envy 133 bundled with a Meizu M8 and a beta copy of Duke Nuken Forever.

[nzo @ Aug 20th 2008 7:15PM]

Unfortunately she wont have tatas or a vagina, the envy will be running MS BOB, the M8 will be an ipod shuffle and DNF will be on betamax.

[phanbouy @ Aug 20th 2008 7:25PM]

that's classic that even in the Alba unicorn fantasy, Duke Nukem only makes it to beta

[sonicwind @ Aug 20th 2008 7:34PM]

If Jessica woke me up at 3:45 AM, I'd be pissed. And no bringing the unicorn into the house. But I'll take new Macbook and an extra iPhone, if she's bringing those.

[phanbouy @ Aug 20th 2008 7:21PM]

In other news, FCC Chairman gets Bob Costas haircut to appear more credible.

[Kevin @ Aug 21st 2008 12:54PM]

Hahaha. At first glance I thought that was Bob Costas.

[KEROLiUKAS @ Aug 20th 2008 7:26PM]

This would be WIN!

[hwoarang27 @ Aug 20th 2008 7:35PM]

free what?

There goes his job. The wireless giants' lobbyists will be make sure consumers do not get free anything.
Republican politicians are gonna replace him in no time.

[Bleck @ Aug 20th 2008 7:36PM]

There is a reason its a "dream".
I want universal health care and education for all Earthlings. Too bad thats unlikely.

[bob @ Aug 20th 2008 7:41PM]

For the first time in a long time, I actually agree with an appointed official on a non-trivial issue.

[Trent @ Aug 20th 2008 7:46PM]

He must be a Democrat...nothing is for freaking free. GEZZZZ!!!

[Richard Lai @ Aug 20th 2008 7:56PM]

You mean Socialist?

[ethana2 @ Aug 20th 2008 9:03PM]

You mean like public education funded by my taxes?
Lots of things are free after you pay for them.

[TC @ Aug 20th 2008 7:46PM]

Let me guess, Kevin Martin is going to be running for public office once his stint at the FCC is finished.

[Capissen @ Aug 20th 2008 7:47PM]

This is a terrible plan. Here's what I see happening:

1) Government mandates free, mobile internet (at whatever speed) but censors it by some standard (say, typical FCC decency standards)
2) 80-90% adoption rate of the free bandwidth because, y'know, it's *free* and *everywhere*
3) The traditional, uncensored internet fades into the background as an enthusiast niche, and without the increasing demand for faster commercial service, uncensored internet costs skyrocket
4) By the time people begin to realize that government censoring of the internet is moving beyond simple decency standards, it's way too late

Like it or not, capitalism is a mandatory component of a truly free society.

[bernardino @ Aug 20th 2008 8:35PM]

Maybe I misunderstand what you were trying to say in your last sentance, but aren't these two steps:
"2) 80-90% adoption rate of the free bandwidth because, y'know, it's *free* and *everywhere*
3) The traditional, uncensored internet fades into the background as an enthusiast niche, and without the increasing demand for faster commercial service, uncensored internet costs skyrocket"
an example of capitalism in action?

Also, if over-the-air and censored TV is free, then how come people still pay for cable?

[wickedpheonix @ Aug 20th 2008 8:16PM]

I'm less concerned about the social aspects, rather the fact that such access, being free, would probably be monopolized by heavy downloaders, considering the fact that someone will write a piece of software that:

a) tethers phones using this to a laptop (if such a network was not open to laptops using appropriate modems in the first place)
b) opens up > 1337 virtual connections to the network to override speed restrictions
c) thereby causing the network to be slow for everyone else.

[ntlam @ Aug 20th 2008 8:16PM]

I have a dream....

[ron @ Aug 20th 2008 8:25PM]

This may be the most ignorant thing I've ever read-

Martin stated that there was a "social obligation in making sure everybody could participate in the next generation of broadband services because, increasingly, that's what people want."

I want sex with hot asian chicks- but that doesn't make it a social obligation.


If the job of the government is to meet the ridiculous whims of uneducated masses I'm moving to a more reasonable country-

like north korea.

Ron

[Mustaine @ Aug 21st 2008 12:20PM]

In communist Korea, hot asian chicks...

....oh wait, that's just as good.

[ethana2 @ Aug 20th 2008 9:42PM]

I hope it's okay, but not Good Enough. I just want something to force qwest to offer service that doesn't suck and completely obselete cell networks.

[Alex @ Aug 20th 2008 10:11PM]

And every user will have gps locators for homeland security.

[nikster @ Aug 20th 2008 10:50PM]

Free wireless internet is just a stupid idea. Firstly, it's not free - it will cost something to operate, and somebody has to pay for it. Taxes, perhaps. Once you disconnect the operators of this free internet with those who benefit, there will be no incentive for the operator to provide a good service.

The government / FCC's role is to make sure there is competition, and so that we come close to an ideal capitalist society in which individual and corporate goals line up with what's best for all. That doesn't happen all by itself, it needs tough laws and regulations in order to prevent monopolies and so on.

There's hardly any competition in the DSL market right now, there's very little competition in mobile phones - that's what the FCC should be working on. Make it so there's 10 more mobile operators, and 10 more fixed broadband providers. Then prices will come down all by themselves.

[Mental Issues @ Aug 20th 2008 11:28PM]

There's very little competition in mobile phones? If that's the case, then why is every other commercial on television from a mobile provider? Why are they trying to shove free phones down our throats?

It's because the phones are locked and come with two-year service contracts. The last thing we need right now is more mobile operators. There are more than enough already. What the FCC should be doing is preventing them from locking people in with long-term contracts. If users could change their wireless provider at any time without severe penalties, companies would have to be much more responsive to the needs of their customers.

[sandfarmer @ Aug 21st 2008 12:51AM]

Martin is an idiot and needs to be shot. I wonder who he slept with to get that job, because he nothing of the industry?

[meist3r @ Aug 21st 2008 1:37AM]

Free internet a country that is as big as the US? Never going to happen, at least not in the US and with the current business standards. There are too many business issues to be resolved to provide user identification and access credentials across the entire country. And on top of that if anyone gets free internet anywhere that means those dreaded terrorist figures would too. I can't see any governmet let that happen in the current climate of hysteria.

But hey, I dream of a world full of free and open platforms that are supported because they are actually good for society and of politicians that actually act on behalf of the people and not their parties. Don't even get me started about all the other Teraflops and Threesome dreams I have.

There's always hope ...

[uberdose @ Aug 21st 2008 2:07AM]

Don't get me wrong, but if you're uneducated and/or poor, free mobile internet won't change that. And I don't think that's the purpose of it. But I really think it can spur the economy. A lot. Think of all the mobile devices getting bought and all the new ad clicks.

[bernardino @ Aug 21st 2008 3:22PM]

I disagree with you on the former but I agree with you on the latter. There are lots of companies on the internet that have content/information to sell that are unable to reach those without internet access. Bridging that gap would mean more dollars flowing through the economy.

[skulldriveshaft @ Aug 21st 2008 11:51PM]

24 hour libraries?

In every place that has a town hall?

It's already doable, every government office across the country has internet access, make an access point, oh wait, if you don't go inside and register first, you'll get arrested for unauthorized access :(