South Carolina State Library/Flickr
The Obama administration appears to have raised quite a few eyebrows with this one.
The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month. [...]
The airwaves that FCC officials want to hand over to the public would be much more powerful than existing WiFi networks that have become common in households. They could penetrate thick concrete walls and travel over hills and around trees. If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas.
The new WiFi networks would also have much farther reach, allowing for a driverless car to communicate with another vehicle a mile away or a patient's heart monitor to connect to a hospital on the other side of town.
As you might imagine, the proposal is not without controversy. Municipalities tend to support it, because free-for-all WiFi service would make it easy to connect schools, libraries, as well as local businesses that would benefit from a broader reach. Google and Microsoft are enthusiastic proponents, arguing that fast, publicly-accessible service from coast to coast would lead to more commerce and innovation.
But the wireless industry is far less pleased.
If consumers can get online, quickly and easily, for no money, nearly everywhere in the country, they'd be disinclined to pay private wireless carriers for the service. What's more, local television stations may have to sacrifice some of their licensed spectrum, and many Republicans oppose the idea, preferring to auction off spectrum to the private sector for revenue that could lower the debt they helped create.
The proposal will need FCC approval, and even if given the green light, would need "several years to set up." There will be an enormous amount of lobbying, jockeying, and debate between now and then.
But the country hasn't seen a debate over access to technology on this scale in quite a while.
Update: I spoke this afternoon to an FCC spokesperson who explained: "The FCC's incentive auction proposal, launched in September of last year, would unleash substantial spectrum for licensed uses like 4G LTE. It would also free up unlicensed spectrum for uses including, but not limited to, next generation Wi-Fi. As the demand for mobile broadband continues to grow rapidly, we need to free up significant amounts of spectrum for commercial use, and both licensed and unlicensed spectrum must be part of the solution."
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like that "Free Stuff" Mitt warned us about.
Armageddon!
Worse. Not free; socialized.
Yeah Socialism...with "Pop up" advertising
Like those damn socialist state and federal highways you take to work every morning?
Being a person of principle, I refuse to travel by socialist roads. Either good old American private roadways or I don't travel.
Or the socialized education system, social security and medicare you are looking forward to use in retirement? Socialized defense for the good of the country, so you can have the freedom to complain about socialisim while you use some of its better ideas while being free of some of its worst ones?
Socialized technology to do all that, too. The reason you drive around on all those pre-stressed concrete flying ramps and never worry for a micro-nanosecond that it might crumble away beneath your tires is because 60 years ago a government scientist was asked to find a way to insure that a pre-stressed concrete structure was solid (without breaking it open) so they could start making dams that way. His invention created the modern pre-stressed concrete industry and no one has ever had to pay royalty to use the patented process, since he was a government employee when he did it. As my father used to say, "If I hadn't been a government employee, we'd all be rich; but if I hadn't been a government employee, no one would have ever asked me the question to begin with."
Almost like some commie want to "promote the general welfare"! Where would someone get such an idea???
If it's any comfort, the Confederate Constitution deliberately left out that stupid "general welfare" clause.
"But the wireless industry is far less pleased." I'll bet they are!
Any lowering of their profit margins with even an imagined link to Obama, these companies will fire workers and make employees part-time and benefit-free because they love Amerika and hate Kommunistic Kenyans, or something.
Any lowering of their profit margins
There would be no profit margins. They would eventually be out of business. Who would pay for anything they offer if they can get it for free? I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but it would impact an entire industry. These service providers (like Xfinity) would lose their main "product".
Wireless providers would have their business models drastically altered, but there would still be plenty of profit to be made. By providing the wireless capability that the government would have to contract, by selling wireless related services, feeds and hardware to the public, and more.
It would be a rising tide. The profits would come from slightly different sources, but all boats would float, and float higher on a well organized and wide bandwidth access to Wi-Fi.
sky dog, think you are correct as wireless kind needs fiber to tie it all together, so company's like Level3 who will sell (rent) dark fiber will make out.
most of them will have to re-shape their business models and the way they treat their customers now.
Cities have floated free Wi-Fi plans in the past. Most notable was Philadelphia. They got bludgeoned into submission by AT&T and other wireless carriers.
Good thing those wireless companies have done such a great job of building up customer good will over the years. Oh wait...
Thinking the same thing after being raped to the tune of $ 150 a month for years (before the mystery charges) by Sprint for their crappy 3 g service. I entertained going to Verizon who have faster speeds , but they have a bend-over-you'll-enjoy-it $20 access charge for the privilege of using their network. They are all whores out for a buck and if you thought they spent a lot of the money you give them lobbying before ...you ain't seen nothin.
AMEN!
A big boon for rural areas also, where service is often difficult to get.
As it is right now, I have to maintain a land line just so I can have the DSL service which comes with Wifi included...And all I need is the Wifi.
Darn socialists - I won't stand for it. They can have my 57K dial-up when they can pry it from my cold dead ... oh - did they say "free calls"? Ummmmm .... That's Selene with 3 e's - thank you.
The "free calls" really wouldn't be free though. Someone would have to pay for setting up the network and maintaining it. If it is provided by the government, then taxes or fees would be involved. I guess you could push for adverstising.
skip, do you honestly think that the federal taxes or fees would be in excess of $80/month, which is what the "cheaper" cell phone + data contracts cost? Or even $45/month which is what most internet service runs?
For the vast majority of Americans who have to carve out a hundred or so dollars every month for a cellphone contract or worse--family plan--this is going to be a godsend. Yes, a true luddite who does not own a laptop or a smartphone or any other sort of wireless-enabled device might be chapped if their taxes go up a few bucks a month to pay for a service they're not using. But I got news -- I have to pay property taxes to send kids to school when I don't have kids, and I manage to not get my panties in a rumple about it...
Nothing is ever free, but look at Europe and Asia where Internet service costs a quarter what it costs here, and you get four times the bandwidth you get here, and there are still profits to be had. Why can they do it when we can't?
I agree with you Ponygirl - to a point. I would argue though, that since there would be no more competition in the service, only a fraction of the people would be needed for this "monopoly". Yes, it may be cheaper per person since it would be paid for by everyone (including the luddites), but it would possibly be another government service with again, possibly poor customer service/repair. I just don't find many government services that are really efficient and "customer - friendly". Now of course many folks don't think the current internet providers are customer friendly either. :)
That's a fair point, but I don't know if it's necessarily my primary concern. As Sprint mentioned, Europe and Asia has a mixed market solution and they really kick our butts... bandwidth is much better and cost is much lower. So I don't think there's a precedent for it. As long as there's money to be made, I'm sure the telecom companies will find a way to get our money from us. :)
AFAIC, I'm not expecting WiFi service that will allow me to stream hi-def movies. And it might be "voice-only" skype instead of voice + video. But AFAIC if I can use my Android Media Player to pull up google maps while I'm on the road, or quickly google an answer for something that we're stuck on in a bar argument, I'm a happy camper.
http://images.wikia.com/peanuts/images/e/ed/Charlie-brown-1-sad.jpg
I read that the expected costs were in the $8-12 billion range (I saw a 3 bil estimate, to, but that seems low). The current industry gets more than $180 billion. So even if the government doesn't just absorb it at first, the increased tax revenue should make up for it quickly.
Do not expect any privacy.
You shouldn't with today's Internet, anyway, and your cell phone is never really "private" unless you can afford a scrambler.
/tinfoil hat.
I'm serious.
Well, like you said, there's no privacy on today's internet as it is, but people don't seem to care otherwise Facebook wouldn't have the userbase it does.
As you'll recall, when federal officials went to the various wireless companies and demanded user records, only one of them bothered to ask for a warrant (and I'm not sure if that company is still around), so really, we're just cutting out the middleman. I suppose if the government is going to know my browsing history, I'd rather have that than the government + a private multinational conglomerate.
My browsing history is pretty boring. Car porn mostly, in pursuit of the 1972 Mustang I'm restoring. Facebook, which isn't private anyways. And Amazon and other merchant purchasing, both for the aforementioned Mustang as well as printer toner, paper, CDs and DVDs that I can't get at Best Buy. Big Brother could use my browser history as a sleep aid. Hm, there might be a market for that, I can join the "natural dietary suppliment" industry!
There may well be some basic content filtering in place -- similar to what public libraries have had to grapple with over the last couple of decades. While the ALA believes that filtering content limits access to information (e.g., the famous instance where someone was trying to do research at the library on their "breast cancer" and the content filter blocked them because, you know, titties), libraries have found they don't qualify for certain federal funding subsidies for telecom expenses unless they filter. Gotta imagine those rules will be applied to this brave new world of universal access to Wikipedia.
Not a great thing, but at least there won't be a lot of hand-wringing about "omg gov't subsidized pornography!"
Wow Obama's just decided to swing for the fences. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
So would this system be run and maintained by the government or would they contract a private company? Either way how is it to be funded/paid? I do not understand how this service is any different from other services - like TV or even electricity. Why would this service be provided "free" to the public and others are not? Utilities are mostly a neccessity, but internet (and TV) really is not (although some may argue that they are). I guess if - like radio and over the air TV, which is "free" over the airwave - they allow advertising to pay for it...
Seems like you answered all of your own *concerns*, Skip.
Maybe I have...just asking. Do you think it would go the way of advertising? And like them or not, this would essentially eliminate an entire industry - with the exception maybe, of the firm tasked by the government. I am not one that thinks the POTUS is a socialist, but we would have a national WiFI network provided by the government. I don't think anyone would really pay for a private network anymore. One could argue that television and radio could/should be the same way - have the feds maintain all the transmission equipment. And thow in the phones too. Why would the internet get this "benefit" over other media/communication methods?
Eliminate an industry that didn't exist a decade or two ago?
I'm sure some businesses were affected when horse and buggy was usurped by the horseless carriage.
Adapt or die. That's the cost of the free market they're always screaming to protect.
. That's the cost of the free market they're always screaming to protect.
Ah...but in this case, it really would be a free market. How could an internet company compete with a similar product that costs nothing? That would be very hard to adapt to. At least in your horse and buggy example, the new horseless carriage still cost something and people that couldn't afford it may have kept a their horse and buggy - at least for a while. In this case everyone would get a "free" horseless carriage.
Skip, think "roads."
The various levels of government need the connectivity, so they're going to pay for it. There have been several studies that say that by putting a middleman in, State and local governments end up paying almost as much for connectivity as it would to provide it to the whole area for free. Various municipalities have tried to do this since it's so cheap, but have been blocked by rent-seekers.
The trick is that, like roads, the biggest cost of providing metered service is ... the meter. So forget the meter and access controls. All of a sudden the governments get something very useful (e.g. internet access for telemedicine to ambulances in rural areas -- a topic near to my heart) and the taxpayers get an additional service for more or less nothing.
That doesn't mean that paid Internet access will go away. For the next several years, I'm going to need a better connection for teleworking than I would trust to a shared WiFi system. But that won't be forever, either.
I can imagine that this would be considered part of our country's infrastructure. There are a lot of industries that would benefit without the high cost of internet and possibly phone services... especially small businesses..
May they go the same way as "free" consumer TV.
The FCC could turn over some of the bandwidth to the Post Office so it can move into the digital age and provide new services. But bandwidth should not be sold to private concerns. If taxpayers are going to pay to set up this network, then taxpayers should reap the benefits from it. I can imagine the major cable providers sucking up all the bandwidth to maintain their stranglehold on internet services if it is sold or leased.
this be great, for broadband.
smiling know the cell people will whine. LOL
It might light a fire under the cell phone providers to innovate and find new services to sell.
It might light a fire under the cell phone providers to innovate and find new services to sell.
Why would you buy something if a similar medium is free? Obviously Internet providers would be up a creek if there was free WiFI, and I would think cell phone providers would dry up too.
Like how NetZero drove all other ISPs out of business? Or how Obamacare caused all private insurance companies to fold? Or how 90% of Americans don't bother with cable television as long as they get free network service? Oh wait.
Let's be honest, the WiFi service they're talking about providing may not be as high-speed as all that. Depending on the architecture, private companies will still be able to offer attractive packages for people who want more comprehensive (faster, more secure, less ads) service and are willing to pay for it.
Point taken Mighty Ponygirl. I did not know NetZero was still that viable. :)
Wifi is not the optimal service for internet. It might also be an issue for cell phone users if it is not as fast as 4G. In addition, there could be lot of wireless traffic on the network which would greatly slow it for anything more than using the internet for browsing and light downloading. I think Congress could find a way to limit the bandwidth to certain uses which would please the cable internet providers and cell phone carriers.
Well, the point was a facetious one -- Cable and Satellite providers have seen their subscriptions plummet over the last few years but they still have 70% market share (this according to a quick google search). 7 out of 10 people who own a TV pay mad $$$ every month for cable or satellite service despite the fact that they could go with rabbit-ears free service.
"Wifi is not the optimal service for internet."
correct that`s why behind a wifi or cell service is a fiber optic backbone. company's like Level3 who has lots of dark fiber will sell (rent).
...and that converter you have to buy now.
"Free" always has a cost associated with it.
A city in Texas wanted to do this for all its citizens. The Rs in the Texas State House (due to large contribs from WiFi companies) made it illegal for Muni's to give free wi-fi!
Actually, any Internet service at all. And the reason that the municipality tried to offer service was because the usual suspects (telco, cable) didn't want to provide service to the town in the first place.
I haven't run across any followups (HINT, Steve!) on whether the town now has private Internet access through landlines or not. It wouldn't surprise me if not.
If we could somehow hit a reset button on all the things our government provides us and asked the general population to prioritize the top 10 best/most useful ones they want the most, I bet free health care and internet would sit somewhere at the top, right around defense and law after people really thought about the full impact this could have on the country, financial and otherwise.
The internet is only going to become more important in our lives. In the long run free fast internet might end up being more important to people than education even, especially if it takes its place someday to some extent like many predict. All for this.
I think the entire planet should be encased in free wifi. Can you imagine the revolt of North Korean citizens when they link to the outside world on black market devices and discover how many seasons of Survivor they've missed? /s/
Survivor? Wait 'til they discover Dallas
Amen! I've been saying for years that we should do this! 20 years ago you could say that if you wanted to have access to information, then you'd go to the library. Well today, the world's best library can be found online. And if we don't have to pay a private company to go to the library, then why should we pay to go online?
Doing this is an important step to moving towards the future. Are we going to deny every American the possibilities of universal wifi, just to protect the pocketbooks of a couple capitalists in the wifi business?
Steel magnate (no, not steel magnet) Andrew Carnegie jumpstarted worldwide free public libraries, especially in the USA. Maybe Gates, Buffett, or Ellison can be inspired by his example.
Steve, do you have any source for this supposed FCC/Administration proposal other than Cecilia Kang's article in the Washington Post? I have not seen nor can I find any other indication of such a proposal in various FCC proposals, pronouncements or ongoing spectrum proceedings. I'd check it out in case she has it wrong.
Another business drain-game foiled by our socialist gubmint. How will they cope?!!!
Oh noZe...
This is about innovation and competition.
Did we limit access to the light bulb when the gas lamp industry started losing market share?
The carriage industry with the advent of automobiles?
Of course we didn't. It's high time we start putting the future of our country, our children, ahead of business entities' sense of profit entitlement.
Compete or go bust, isn't that capitalism at it's best? For that matter, how come the magical free hand of the market hasn't already provided this service, this innovation and advancement for the public good?
Free sounds great to me( nothing is ever free). I have three kids and bills pile up quickly. I hate the providers. I'm amazed we are able to watch the news without some special channel bundling. Here's the problem I have 1. I'm a conservative( you can start throwing rotten fruit at me now) and I believe in smaller government. Correct me if I'm wrong but this would be putting them into more of our lives and making us more dependent on them. 2. I've worked for the federal and state government. I've found that they rarely do anything efficiently, cost affective or well. Ever! 3. A significant amount of companies will go under and jobs for simple folks will be gone. 4. Customer service. Call the post office some time and see what sort of customer service you get. You've lost all leverage. Your no longer a customer but a citizen. 5. This is the one that really concerns me( I drink that right wing cool aide ). What happens down the road a year or two when they come out and announce that for the good of the masses they are going to ensure the content on the Internet is suitable for us. They will let us know what we can research, view, look at , communicate with , etc. . This is just my humble view from a guy who loves his country and believes in freedom. Take care
Some points but that's why we need people in government that have their heads on straight. As far as being monitored for content haven't you ever heard of what's going on in congress now? CISPA & SOPA and both sides of the spectrum have been pushing legislation. Not good!
Petition/http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa/?akid=1306.606560.P_YGMF&rd=1&t=2
Radio free America sounds great to me. Verizon and the few others have a monopoly and charge high rates and are terrible employers low wages and many tower deaths. I'm not a fan of cloud computing you don't have a real computer and with legislation like CISPA & SOPA your computer may not be your own property anymore. It would be a boon for business perhaps it should be part of the USPS since it would have the greatest impact on them.
Stock in Verizon would drop like a rock! LOL Is this how Republicans get money for their campaigns?
Call it Public Service Internet. In todays world it shouldn't be for just the haves..If your looking for a job or service this would be great for both! Bye bye job service Yet the Unemployment office would still be there.
It's interesting that some national resources are more national than others. Water, airwaves, oil, coal. Some of these are sold on behalf of the public for a lot, some are sold for very little compared to fair value.
Via Josh Sterns of Free Press, further details, which mesh with the update at the end of the post. In short, no, it's not free government wifi.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/no-free-wi-fi-isnt-coming-to-every-us-city/