FCC will consider 'free or very low cost wireless broadband' service
By Vlad Savov 
posted March 10th 2010 6:13AM
posted March 10th 2010 6:13AM
Did you know there was a Digital Inclusion Summit going on? We already know the FCC isn't best pleased about the fact 93 million Americans are making do without access to home broadband, and this latest event was an opportunity for it to dish some more info on its forthcoming National Broadband Plan. The major obstacles to broadband adoption identified by the FCC were noted as cost, computer illiteracy, and a sheer lack of awareness about the benefits the web offers (outside of cute kitties). The big Plan will be delivered to Congress a week from today, and its suggestions will include the creation of a Digital Literacy Corps, who'll be performing missionary duties among the unenlightened, and the big whopper: a proposal to "consider use of spectrum for a free or very low cost wireless broadband service." Yeah, if you can't jump over the cost hurdle you might as well eviscerate it from existence. Quite naturally, such radical plans have been met with much grumbling opposition, and Business Week reports that it may be years before the full reforms are implemented ... if at all.
Its a good day to be google.
@Eal i dont understand what u mean here hon
The first thing that will happen is that with that many people jumping on, the rest of us paying will inevitably lose some bandwidth. Seems like a bad idea to me, my taxes need to go down not up.
Awesome, I always wanted dial-up!
@CaptainPlanet Not to be an ass, but "Free or very low cost wireless broadband". That last word's the keyword.
@CaptainPlanet
Not just dial-up.....WIRELESS Dial-up
lol
......the previous statement was a joke and not meant to be taken seriously.
@abedinthehouse
Hey, don't laugh. I had a vacation home a few years back, and it just didn't pay to have broadband, since I didn't use it all that much. However, I did want the ability to check email, etc. So, I cobbled together an old PC w/ modem, installed a proxy server on it, added a wireless access point, and voila, wireless dial-up! :-)
It was a riot sitting in the kitchen launching a browser on my laptop. I could here the PC in the next room initializing the dial-up connection. There's nothing quite like 40K wireless. :-)
@Spiny Norman
Apple used to sell an 56kbps dial-up wireless AirPort modem that worked with Macs. I'm sure they are still available on auction sites, but still remain one of the only wireless dial-up solutions to connect via wifi to landline. It's not as slow as my supposedly 3g cell data... kinda nice if broadband/dsl aren't available.
@Spiny Norman
40k wireless? you are lucky...
So....how long before the internet gets shut down by the RIAA/MPAA for.....downloading?
@Gamecheater
>The internet
I meant this internet connection that would be freely available to everyone. Just wanted to clarify.
Just as telephone service is not free, broadband service should not as well. I agree it should be CHEAPER, but controlled by communication companies that are not CONTROLLED by the government.
The fact is, the government will build this broadband system most likely using tax payer money. Money of which we don't have, and should not be spending. It would also be just one more way the government would someday would be allowed to use it as any way it deemed necessary.
I'm all for cheaper broadband, and I think through time, it will be. However, I will not support my government taking more money from me and giving it to someone else. We are not socialists. There are still plenty of libraries to use if internet access is needed, besides the fact that MANY jobs are already have internet access.
Imagine if taxpayers have to pay for the initial deployment of this system AND pay a "very lost cost" bill!! No thank you sir.
@think before you react
If a service is a necessity and it is monopolized (less than 3 competitors), government should step in.
@TypeEE
Free low-cost broadband internet is not a necessity!
But I do agree that something needs to be done about telecom monopolies. The fact that they exist means that they should be splintered up and de-regulated. I'm sick of the fact that I'm currently stuck getting raped by Charter Cable. If there was another option then I would be all over it.
@Rick James You do realize that it is impossible for the telecom industry to ever be a truly competitive market? The inherent nature of the beast will not allow it. Somethings are just better run by the government. Get over it.
@stabby
What has the government ever done better than the free market?
@stabby
What has the government ever done better than the free market?
@cobjones
War.
@cobjones Highways, internet, military, firefighters, police, healthcare, railroads(not here but everywhere else), air traffic control, airports, seaports, space exploration, water, sewage, power.
Basically all the stuff that benefits society, but isn't cost effective. As well as major projects that a company wouldn't see a return on for 50-100 years, and therefore have no incentive to invest in. Like Dams, highways, roads, etc.
@cobjones You do realize that the only reason power lines, and phone lines were run out to rural america in the first place was due to government mandates. Power companies would never have had a return on running a single line out to a small town 100 miles from a power station.
@ stabby
Internet, no done better in competition and without regulation.
Highways, old tollways in the early 1900s were private and in better condition, until government takeover.
Healthcare, LOL really? Medicare and Medicaid are seriously in debt.
Military, private has never had a chance.
Air traffic, ask any small plane pilot.
Water, why do private water companies sell so much water? Because municipalities are pure junk, with so many problems.
Waste, Waste Management have you heard of them? They make money where as government waste companies need subsidies.
Don't spill things that are incorrect. The closer we get to the constitution the better, meaning all big government needs to go (R and D).
@think before you react
Dude, we already paid for it.
$200 billion in fees and tax breaks were given to the telecoms in the 90s in return for their promise to deploy broadband everywhere.
After mergers and administration changes, the telecom corporations conveniently forgot to finish the job, but they kept the money anyway.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
Hell - this sounds like SOCIALISM! Get your crosses and garlic out!
On a more serious note: The current situation with sky high prices from fully privatized service providers is the result of a fully capitalist system. The poor can often not afford broadband, not to mention wireless broadband in the states. They would afford it in Europe, if they'd live there. We've got all-you-can-eat wireless broadband for 10 euro a month.
But then again, poor people are just lazy, no-good welfare hobos, right?
@Kupa "The current situation with sky high prices from fully privatized service providers is the result of a fully capitalist system"
You couldn't be FURTHER from the truth on that. You know that the only thing keeping small companies from running lines to your home or starting up a small base of operations anywhere they want is government regulation, right?
@Kupa What do you pay for Internet service. $30 for me is far from sky high. The avg household could just not eat out a couple times a month and pay for it. And btw that's not much mire expensive than ten euros.
@Kupa Or they could buy a $300 laptop and pay $1 for a cup of coffee at MD's when they need internet. Hmm, $30 a month for high speed internet at home, or $31 a month with a crappy laptop in public with homeless people and internet that won't hit 1mbps. Well with the later you may get a few gallons of shitty coffee, but I think I'll stick with the former. Ease of access is priceless.
More programs that will need to be funded by my tax dollars... Wonderful.
@AltairDusk Exactly... did we the people ask for this???
@Jacob Apple Geek Technically, "We the People" only asked for the government to protect our freedoms. Nowhere did "We the People" ask for them to provide services to the people.
@Andir The people elected the representatives that put people in the FCC that make these decisions.
@AltairDusk I would be against this if we had massive debts to foreign countries and a budget deficit during financially challenging times when our government should be spending LESS not more, but since that isn't the case, lets start printing money baby! WOOOOO!!!
I also think that cars and food and electricity are too expensive, and would like these for free too.
In fact, technically, I really don't like paying for anything.
Cute Kitties?
Is that a Euphemism?
Yes... it means porn... everything on the internet means porn... except this...
FCC: Men In Tights.
@cobaltage They rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
The Unenlightened: "You mean I don't have to use stamps to pay bills, send handwritten letters to my family, or buy LOLcats magazine at the bookstore anymore?"
Me: "Well I sure don't do any of those things since I have the Intarwebs."
The Unenlightened:"Intarwebs?"
Me: "Oh sorry, the World Wide Web. You know, that little "www" that we talked about up in that address bar on your World Wide Web internet computer browser..."
The Unenlightened: " Oh ok,....One more Question...What's a Firefox?"
DAMNED SOCIALISTS! GO AWAY!
US Government did get a report from Japan on how Japan did it. Their government didn't give out free internet. What they did was put laws to unbundle the copper connection from the giant telephone company, so that other smaller companies can compete by leasing certain section of the equipment. The cable and phone wires took more than 50 years to lay the wires out, it's next to impossible to compete with such a head start.
I'd rather have my tax dollars fund something like this than many of the ridiculous goverernment programs out there...
If you give free internet access away, who's going to be their IT expert? This poor woman was at Office Depot yesterday and she was trying to pick the brain of a worker there about getting her infected computer cleaned. I would have stepped in and offered to help her, but I can't be using up my free time to help every Tom, Dick and Jane. It's bad enough that I already do that with some of my friends and family. Ugh.
@gerrrg
Al Gore, of course.
I'm sure the big internet providers will scream and cry foul, which will throw roadblocks in the way of this type of program. I mean, Obama is all about new jobs for the people, but I would wager a program like this would kill far more jobs in the private sector than it would create for building the infrastructure required.
Honestly, something like this is a great idea for those areas that are difficult and/or impossible to get decent broadband. Rural areas, mountainous regions, places where the only options are slow dial-up or high-latency (and cost) satellite services... It's also a great concept for the constant traveler, to have the option of connecting any time wherever they are, without forking over money to the wireless providers to get you connections that are decent to poor, depending on locations.
@Vrmithrax
Let them cry foul, they had their chance. They even received payment for a job they never finished. Had they done their *job* they would have already implemented the infrastructure and this would not be an issue.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
To all of the "sky is falling" right-wing nutjobs and those lacking perspective: a free or low-cost national wireless broadband plan needs to be an imperative. Private industry is not going to deliver anything remotely close to what is needed, and the benefits the U.S. would be set to incur far outstrip the associated costs. This would be the equivalent of a digital Federal interstate highway system. Its impact on business, education, and telecommunications would be profound.
This is a country that spends over $650 billion annually on its defense budget. For comparison sake, the Health Care reform bill being debated is estimated to cost around $100 billion anually, would insure 98% of the population, and actually reduce the Federal budget over 10 years. An evaluation of our national priorities is badly needed.
The American people need to open their eyes and demand that the U.S. corporatist Federal goverment begin working for them. We need real vision for the future, not 24-hour news cycle political talking points repeated ad nauseum or bellyaching over paying your taxes.
@jm9843
So everyone who want's to keep their hard earned income instead of passing it on to the lazy, uneducated or just plain untalented people earning less or mooching completely is a right wing nut job? Great argument. You see, some people don't think they are 'entitled' to a better way of life, they happen to feel that they have 'earned' it. Many of them don't want the money going to exorbitant military programs either. By the way, in 2009, we spent $895 billion on defense. Yep that's a lot. But we also spent 830 billion on health care, and 557 billion on welfare. So we gave more to the poor than we spent on defense.. most of which was probably mismanaged or fraudulent. The government is terrible at managing services, that is why many people oppose a public option - which is the argument hampering health care reform.
Now, this is a tech blog so lets bring it back around. The argument against this government broadband program is pretty much the same. The government will screw it up, mismanage it, and pay a bunch of idiots too much to do nothing and it will fail in a quagmire anyway. So why waste the tax dollars? The poor can do without free internet a bit longer, they probably won't use it to look for a job anyway.
@wraith404 Welfare moochers, aka the military. Get rid of them!
So spending even more money is better? I'm not playing politics because both parties aren't great.
It is just rediculous that the thought of everything should be provided is a joke.
I said this in another post and I will say it again. I busted my but for 4 years during college. 2 full time and 1 part time jobs on top of a full 16 hour semester the whole time. I got a good job and now I can afford these things that YOU think should be provided.
Why don't people try a little harder instead of smoking weed and partying all the time (and yes this is 90% of the people that I know are on programs).
Libs are generous with my money, but I never see them spending theirs.
@jm9843 where are the efforts to put computers in homes so they have a use for that free broadband in the first place?
@cobjones
Great, you can afford things like broadband. Now what if you live on a farm?
Go postal... literally. The US Postal Service is having a hard time finding revenue. There are already postal offices throughout the country and in local communities. If these facilities act as wireless broadband points, you could bring more users into USPS facilities and perhaps influence their activities regarding services. You could charge a nominal fee of $12/year ($1/month) for an email account that is completely ad-free. People could then link their electronic billing to their "USPS guaranteed" email accounts so if they don't have bank accounts, they can pay in cash at the postal counter (like a money order) and receive an account credit to pay bills. The fee for the money exchange would replace stamp costs. Also, by being a community wireless broadband provider, the USPS would fulfill its mission of delivering mail (albeit e-mail) to remote locations. Another vision is that a person without a computer could walk up to a USPS kiosk and type out an email with the option of the email to be printed and delivered to a person without access to a computer (perhaps a disabled person who cannot make it to the office and who does not have access to a computer). So instead of having to physically transmit a letter coast-to-coast, the letter can be printed at its destination saving fuel costs.