FCC Paves Way for Free Wi-Fi

[PatriotOne]

Free Wi-Fi? Wahoo! Perhaps Leprecuans are donating their pots of gold to pay for it


FCC Paves Way for Free Wi-Fi

http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/regulation/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=211200236

Wireless carriers' concerns of interference from a free nationwide Wi-Fi network are overblown, according to a report from the FCC.

By Marin Perez
InformationWeek
October 13, 2008 07:43 PM

The FCC's plan to offer free nationwide broadband has taken a step forward as the agency said the potential interference with wireless carriers' networks is minimal.

The commission had considered auctioning off the frequencies in the 2,155-2,175 MHz band and requiring the winner to offer free Wi-Fi across the United States. Wireless carriers had been opposed to this initiative because of potential interference.

Rest at link here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/regulation/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=211200236

 

[angelatc]

Great idea. Give it to people for free by subsidizing it with tax dollars, thereby driving the competitors into bankruptcy, then you won't have to worry about all that pesky upgrading to the new technology that won't develop.

On the other hand - TV signals are free. Radio signals are free. People still pay for cable, Dish, and Sirius.

 

[mediahasyou]

Modern liberal freedom is a paradox: Freedom at the expense of other's freedom.

 

[Kotin]

wtf.. I never understood why the government wants to give more access to the internet.. the one thing that will come back and screw them and has screwed them for the past decade...

 

[Danke]

On the other hand - TV signals are free. Radio signals are free. People still pay for cable, Dish, and Sirius.

Is it? Could I broadcast unlimited wattage and not run afoul of the regulators?

 

[Bruno]

wtf.. I never understood why the government wants to give more access to the internet.. the one thing that will come back and screw them and has screwed them for the past decade...

would they then be able to monitor it easier?

 

[evilfunnystuff]

wtf.. I never understood why the government wants to give more access to the internet.. the one thing that will come back and screw them and has screwed them for the past decade...

then they can control it and moniter it and track your every keystroke and not let you use it unless you agree

 

[cheapseats]

then they can control it and moniter it and track your every keystroke and not let you use it unless you agree

They do that anyway. Separately from WHETHER it happens, it COULD happen that they track our IP addresses right to the armchairs from which we quarterback world events. They HAVE the capability. They HAVE the cooperation.

I will argue that America SHOULD be wired. I will argue that people should be able to hop onto the internet any old place they flip open or turn on a relevant device. The physical flow of information...I am not now talking about healthy competition amongst rival journalists to track down the best stories or among commentators to write up the most persuasive arguments, I am talking about the hardware of the information highway...I will argue is as suitable for federal coordination and funding as the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.

I checked into a nice hotel in downtown Philadelphia recently, right smack in the middle of their financial district, to discover that they would charge me...in addition to a not immodest room charge, $12.95 PER NIGHT for wireless. The hotel is already tricked out with it. They pay not more nor less upon my usage, yet they would gouge individual customers to foot MORE than is the hotel's entire expense. Same with Starbucks. What, people aren't spending enough on Starbucks and on internet service providers...if they want to use the internet AT Starbucks, they must pay for both? It is pure greed. Now you pay for food on an airplane, soon you will pay extra for utensils in a restaurant.

The idea that every component of service shall turn its own profit is corrosive to the development of business relationships. I trust that I no longer have to defend the importance of psycho-babble in governance and commerce.

I envision Libraries and Post Offices with banks of computers...let us get the population up to speed. WIRED, everywhere you go...productivity will SOAR.

As to "competition" and ownership, who owned airwaves to sell them in the first place? Shall the few remaining behemoth airlines be able to buy sectors of the sky?

Some things are not meant to be for profit. Health. Justice. Communication. Energy.

We're gonna have to talk about food and water, too.

The idea that one man can withhold that which another needs to SURVIVE until the would-be survivor meets his price? Trust me on this, NOT Christian.

I'm not talking about fashion. I'm not talking about entertainment. I'm not talking about bells and whistles. I'm not talking about all the gizmos and gadgetry that make America a continuing marvel. I'm talking about survival, and I'm talking about decency. Some things do not lend themselves to the profit paradigm.

I know that Libertarians are hardcore about laissez faire but we're running out of time if we mean to see someone other than McCain or Obama assume the throne. Some regulation of the market is required. Not more, mind...less, absolutely. Composed logically and sans loopholes, then administered efficiently by honest bureaucrats. It's a tall order, I know, but it is what it is.

 

[micahnelson]

Guys I think youre missing the point here.

Something in the public domain, stayed in the public domain. Saying they should restrict it to not interfere with business, is like saying they should pave rivers so boats don't compete with the airlines using free river currents.

What conglomerate should they sell it to, verizon? Clearchannel?

 

[pacelli]

then they can control it and moniter it and track your every keystroke and not let you use it unless you agree

Ding ding ding !!! We have a winner! All those using the new wi-fi will probably be prohibited from "user names", "avatars" and "screen names". Only real names, how about those apples!

 

[micahnelson]

Free Wifi doesn't have to come from the FedGov. Obviously it shouldnt. It could come from universities to encourage enrollment, towns to encourage business, businesses to encourage sales of wifi devices....

As it stands, I am glad a scrap of bandwidth is available to nonbillionaires.

 

[cheapseats]

Guys I think youre missing the point here.

Something in the public domain, stayed in the public domain. Saying they should restrict it to not interfere with business, is like saying they should pave rivers so boats don't compete with the airlines using free river currents.

What conglomerate should they sell it to, verizon? Clearchannel?

A few years back, it was suggested to me that the government/military partnership was developing a whole different tier of the internet...the A track, as it were. I am much opposed to that.

I am talking about nationwide basic clunker access to the One www-dot-world-com.

 

[cheapseats]

Free Wifi doesn't have to come from the FedGov. Obviously it shouldnt. It could come from universities to encourage enrollment, towns to encourage business, businesses to encourage sales of wifi devices....

True enough. I, like most people, often neglect to distinguish between federal/state...only because, so do they. On the other hand, as with the Interstate Highway System, there is perhaps something to be said for sameness here.

As it stands, I am glad a scrap of bandwidth is available to nonbillionaires.

I, as well...it is one of mankind's crowning achievements.

 

[FindLiberty]

...to each according to his need. Of course it will require FCC content regulation to protect the children (and put a clamp on free speech as a government/incumbent side benefit). Like a highway speed limit sign.

 

[ItsTime]

Great idea. Give it to people for free by subsidizing it with tax dollars, thereby driving the competitors into bankruptcy, then you won't have to worry about all that pesky upgrading to the new technology that won't develop.

On the other hand - TV signals are free. Radio signals are free. People still pay for cable, Dish, and Sirius.

TV signals will no longer be broadcasting next year. Am I understanding this right? Is that why they are trying to make everyone throw away their old tvs? So they control it 100%?

 

[cheapseats]

...to each according to his need. Of course it will require FCC content regulation to protect the children (and put a clamp on free speech as a government/incumbent side benefit). Like a highway speed limit sign.

It occurs to me that, if a second tier of the internet would be advisable...apparently it's do-able...it makes more sense that it would be for "Twelve & Under." It would be the responsibility of the parent/teacher/guardian to keep Pre-Teens out of the liquor cabinet, so to speak, just as it is their responsibility to keep Teens without drivers' licenses out from behind the wheel of the family car.

 

[ItsTime]

It occurs to me that, if a second tier of the internet would be advisable...apparently it's do-able...it makes more sense that it would be for "Twelve & Under." It would be the responsibility of the parent/teacher/guardian to keep Pre-Teens out of the liquor cabinet, so to speak, just as it is their responsibility to keep Teens without drivers' licenses out from behind the wheel of the family car.

How about this? You dont let your child use the computer to commit a crime? Yes it is a crime to allow your child to look at pornography. They are using YOUR computer to look at it. If I were a adult website owner that had a parent complain about my site I would sue the parent for allowing the child to access my site.

 

[cheapseats]

How about this? You dont let your child use the computer to commit a crime? Yes it is a crime to allow your child to look at pornography. They are using YOUR computer to look at it. If I were a adult website owner that had a parent complain about my site I would sue the parent for allowing the child to access my site.

And a solid argument you could make.

I don't make the rules. I am told that an entirely separate tier of the internet is well underway. I object. Within that construct, I maintain that if there WOULD be a second tier, it would better benefit society that it be a romper room than a racketeering room.

Also, your method of child supervision would oblige an adult to be perpetually over the shoulder of every young mind, which is creepy in its own way. A separate kid tier would be a separate plan/service. Easy, then, to restrict access to the wide world of gambling, pornography, bomb making, bestiality, al queda recruitment, and politics.

I'm not advocating it, I'm remarking.

 

[ItsTime]

And a solid argument you could make.

I don't make the rules. I am told that an entirely separate tier of the internet is well underway. I object. Within that construct, I maintain that if there WOULD be a second tier, it would better benefit society that it be a romper room than a racketeering room.

You wont like the tiers they make. Ron Paul forums would be on the most expensive tier. If it made the tier at all.

 

[kombayn]

Great idea. Give it to people for free by subsidizing it with tax dollars, thereby driving the competitors into bankruptcy, then you won't have to worry about all that pesky upgrading to the new technology that won't develop.

On the other hand - TV signals are free. Radio signals are free. People still pay for cable, Dish, and Sirius.

Hehe. It seems you came around right at the end of your statement there buddy. It wouldn't eliminate the competition. People who got free Wi-Fi would just end up with a certain amount of bandwidth. You're still better off getting a private companies service for your home because of the better bandwidth rate. I have fiber-optics system by Verizon called FiOS, it kicks major ass and you get 3 different choices in speed, I have the lowest and it's still incredibly fast for 3 computers in the house that are constantly used. I think everyone deserves internet access, it's vital to get our real information and has help exposed tons of corruption in our system. Only reason companies don't want it is because they'll have to upgrade their bandwidth to stay competitive with a free service.