Tech, telecom giants take sides as FCC proposes large public WiFi networkshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/tech-telecom-giants-take-sides-as-fcc-proposes-large-public-wifi-networks/2013/02/03/eb27d3e0-698b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story_1.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/tech-telecom-giants-take-sides-as-fcc-proposes-large-public-wifi-networks/2013/02/03/eb27d3e0-698b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story_1.html)
QuoteThe 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 proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has rattled the $178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce lobbying effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea, analysts say. That has been countered by an equally intense campaign from Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all WiFi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, especially the poor.
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.
If approved by the FCC, the free networks would still take several years to set up. And, with no one actively managing them, connections could easily become jammed in major cities. But public WiFi could allow many consumers to make free calls from their mobile phones via the Internet. The frugal-minded could even use the service in their homes, allowing them to cut off expensive Internet bills.
"For a casual user of the Web, perhaps this could replace carrier service," said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at the Medley Global Advisors research firm. "Because it is more plentiful and there is no price tag, it could have a real appeal to some people."
The major wireless carriers own much more spectrum than what is being proposed for public WiFi, making their networks more robust, experts say.
Designed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan would be a global first. When the U.S. government made a limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in innovation followed. Baby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphones were created. Millions of homes now run their own wireless networks, connecting tablets, game consoles, kitchen appliances and security systems to the Internet.
"Freeing up unlicensed spectrum is a vibrantly free-market approach that offers low barriers to entry to innovators developing the technologies of the future and benefits consumers," Genachowski said in a an e-mailed statement.
Some companies and cities are already moving in this direction. Google is providing free WiFi to the public in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan and parts of Silicon Valley.
Cities support the idea because the networks would lower costs for schools and businesses or help vacationers easily find tourist spots. Consumer advocates note the benefits to the poor, who often cannot afford high cellphone and Internet bills.
The proposal would require local television stations and other broadcasters to sell a chunk of airwaves to the government that would be used for the public WiFi networks. It is not clear whether these companies would be willing to do so.
The FCC's plan is part of a broader strategy to repurpose entire swaths of the nation's airwaves to accomplish a number of goals, including bolstering cellular networks and creating a dedicated channel for emergency responders.
Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Genachowski for his idea of creating free WiFi networks, noting that an auction of the airwaves would raise billions for the U.S. Treasury.
That sentiment echoes arguments made by companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Intel and Qualcomm, in a letter to the FCC staff late last month, that the government should focus its attention on selling the airwaves to businesses.
Some of these companies also cautioned that a free WiFi service could interfere with existing cellular networks and television broadcasts.
Intel, whose chips are used in many of the devices that operate on cellular networks, fears that the new WiFi service would crowd the airwaves. The company said it would rather the FCC use the airwaves from television stations to bolster high-speed cellular networks, known as 4G.
"We think that that spectrum would be most useful to the larger society and to broadband deployment if it were licensed," said Peter Pitsch, the executive director of communications for Intel. "As unlicensed, there would be a disincentive to invest in expensive networking equipment and provide users with optimal quality of service."
Cisco and other telecommunications equipment firms told the FCC that it needs to test the airwaves more for potential interference.
"Cisco strongly urges the commission to firmly retreat from the notion that it can predict, or should predict . . . how the unlicensed guard bands might be used," the networking giant wrote.
Supporters of the free-WiFi plan say telecom equipment firms have long enjoyed lucrative relationships with cellular carriers and may not want to disrupt that model.
An FCC official added that there is little proof so far that the spectrum that could be used for public WiFi systems would knock out broadcast and 4G wireless signals.
"We want our policy to be more end-user-centric and not carrier-centric. That's where there is a difference in opinion" with carriers and their partners, said a senior FCC official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal is still being considered by the five-member panel.
The lobbying from the cellular industry motivated longtime rivals Google and Microsoft to join forces to support the FCC's proposal. Both companies would benefit from a boom in new devices that could access the free WiFi networks.
These companies want corporations to multiply the number of computers, robots, devices and other machines that are able to connect to the Internet, analysts said. They want cars that drive themselves to have more robust Internet access.
More public WiFi, they say, will spur the use of "millions of devices that will compose the coming Internet of things," the firms wrote in their comment to the FCC last week.
"What this does for the first time is bring the prospect of cheap broadband, but like any proposal it has to get through a political process first," said Harold Feld, a vice president at the public interest group Public Knowledge.
dreamers
This is another potential sea change in our culture. Internet as a public right provided by the government provided enmass. I don't know that lobbyists can kill it out of hand when the savings to the average American would be so great. One massive national wireless network shared by everyone, and everything. It could reshape our culture and in turn put hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, out of work.
It's similar to and even related to what Google Car is likely to do over the next 5-10 years. Automated cars are going to put millions of people that drive for a living out of work, very soon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/30/google-self-driving-car-unemployment
Are we prepared for the day when most people don't work? What will our world look like when almost all tasks are done by machines?
Quote from: Townsend on February 04, 2013, 11:27:35 AM
Lobbies too strong?
You don't think the ISP/phone carrier lobby will stand for this, do you?
You pipe dreamer!
:D
Quote from: Hoss on February 04, 2013, 11:35:42 AM
You don't think the ISP/phone carrier lobby will stand for this, do you?
I'm hoping
Quote"Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all WiFi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, especially the poor."
could be helpful.
I worry that
Quote"Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Genachowski for his idea of creating free WiFi networks, noting that an auction of the airwaves would raise billions for the U.S. Treasury.
That sentiment echoes arguments made by companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Intel and Qualcomm, in a letter to the FCC staff late last month, that the government should focus its attention on selling the airwaves to businesses."
will kill it.
Quote from: swake on February 04, 2013, 11:35:33 AM
It could reshape our culture and in turn put hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, out of work.
But the development from it could provide millions of new jobs.
The US is very far behind many countries with affordable and fast internet. We pay about triple what they pay in Canada for less than half the bandwidth they can get. Part of those fees we pay on our bills was supposed to go to building up the infrastructure but since the people never really complained, that money went to other things like bonuses for the big whigs at the telcos. The future will be super high speed wireless rather than cable or fiber. Once any provider can just start transmitting, there should hopefully be much more competition and bring the prices down. I am all for communities getting together and setting up free WiFi. Google pays for it in towns where they have offices like Mountain View, CA and Pryor, OK.
For the most part wireless companies are rapidly just devolving into loan sharks giving you a really high interest loan on a smart phone. Oh, and providing you a little bandwidth on the side.
Just give it time. Dead industry walking.
It's nice to fantasize sometimes that the government might actually do something to the benefit of the people. Wouldn't that be nice...??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2013, 10:03:40 PM
It's nice to fantasize sometimes that the government might actually do something to the benefit of the people. Wouldn't that be nice...??
Why on Earth would anyone want the government to take over internet service????????
Internet service used to be extremely expensive for the very limited bandwidth offered. Over the years competition and ruthless inovation has driven the cost of internet connectivity down as the bandwidth has increased. Businesses offering free internet connectivity as a way to generate business has dropped it even further.
Our household is rather unique in the level of bandwidth we require because we run a couple of businesses. We have a server, running two web server instances, and typically up to 4 connected data devices at a time (phones, tablets, netflix, Wii, FTP Drive, and laptops). We pay about .66 a day for high speed internet with Cox (actually we typically pay less than that). We almost never experience slow connectivity any more and have never had an outage. We also get email, and storage with that but don't use it.
Years ago you could purchase a 9600 baud plan for $24 a month. That is about 1/20th the speed, at about 30 times the price for data.
Competitive pressure, lack of government regulation, and the resulting expansion of resources and technology continue to push the price down to the point where businesses use network connection as a loss leader to increase commerce in other areas.
Give this power to government, and like everything, the necessity to build bureaucracy, regulation, and control with increase. As more business drop their private networks to take advantage of "the public option," internet service will become very fair. People who require higher bandwidth than the government regulated system provides will be forced to pay significantly more to make up for loss of private user-ship, and over time, just like with much of the energy industry, large highly regulated monopolies will emerge, and the price through tax or private service will increase without competitive pressure to improve service or innovate. Resources will not be distributed by use or any real logic, but instead, distributed to produce fairness and equality.
If you want to know why we still have high-voltage coal and gas fired power plants, and pay hundreds of dollars a month to heat our homes, instead of pennys for cheap solar, wind, wave, geo-thermal, low voltage, or perhaps even fission powered homes, look no further than this line of reasoning.
The internet remains just about the last fronteer of the free market. We are coming very close to a singularity between connected information and the human mind itself. It now drives almost everything else, and anyone who wants to can take part either for free or for very little. While city, state, or national internet service sounds cool to the average liberal mind, it will work exactly as every other government program. It will evolve into the same creature.
Gas:
Not advocating for it, but one reason for the government to take over internet service is the ridiculous fees Americans pay for smart phone service. 3 or 4 times higher than the rest of the world. Hell, we aren't even allowed to really own the phones we pay hundreds to buy and thousands to operate.
Wake:
Luddite. The exact same argument was made when the gotten gin was invented. Then again when water wheels started spinning yard. Yet again when the industrial revolution really took off. It was made when cars displaced teams of horses for local transit and one truck could do the work of 5 teams. People said the same thing when elevator operators went away. Milkmen. Telephone switch operators. Wagon wheel makers. Scribes. . Brick layers when roads were paved. When computers started and expanded.
You name almost any innovation and someone was shouting that it kills jobs.
If all we wanted was jobs, with no regard to efficiency, we could have teams of men digging holes and teams of women fill them in.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 07:40:39 AM
Why on Earth would anyone want the government to take over internet service????????
How do you see this as the government taking over the internet?
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 09:03:34 AM
How do you see this as the government taking over the internet?
Srsly? Look at the name by the post. ;)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on February 05, 2013, 07:55:07 AM
Gas:
Not advocating for it, but one reason for the government to take over internet service is the ridiculous fees Americans pay for smart phone service. 3 or 4 times higher than the rest of the world. Hell, we aren't even allowed to really own the phones we pay hundreds to buy and thousands to operate.
But, in perspective, about $1.66 a day gives you 166mb of data a day on your phone (ATT). I would consider myself a power user with 6 email addresses, streaming video cameras at businesses, and RDP connections from time to time. I also tether on 4G at trade shows and client's offices. Only once have I exceeded my limit.
When data was first available over cellular networks the cost was significantly more and the bandwidth significantly less. I had one of the very first data phones and it was "ridiculous." Today the bandwidth continues to increase and the cost continues to drop. I don't see the fees as "ridiculous," I see them as in-motion and evolving very fast! Imagine what would have happened back in the AOL days if there was a cry for the FCC to create large dial-up networks? Chances are we would be far behind where we are now (probably still on dial up) because the "ridiculous" amount that AOL, MSN, and others charged for a single MB of data would have been removed from free market pressure. As for other countries, paying .20 a MB for high speed mobile data in South Korea is very different, when the average income is about $26,000 after taxes, and quite relative. Beyond that, most other countries rely on our technology advances to improve much of their infrastructure, so they get a bit of a free ride.
http://www.thekoreaguide.com/2012/02/25/average-salary-and-tax-structure-in-south-korea-for-expats/
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 09:03:34 AM
How do you see this as the government taking over the internet?
Well there is the whole "The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation" and free access to the internet thing. The article seems to indicate that would be exactly what would happen unless the article was poorly written or my critical reading skills have gone to pot.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 10:39:10 AM
Well there is the whole "The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation" and free access to the internet thing. The article seems to indicate that would be exactly what would happen unless the article was poorly written or my critical reading skills have gone to pot.
You mean by allowing access for the general public?
QuoteThe 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.
I'm not seeing the conspiracies here.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 10:39:10 AM
Well there is the whole "The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation" and free access to the internet thing. The article seems to indicate that would be exactly what would happen unless the article was poorly written or my critical reading skills have gone to pot.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Nothing_5d865f_2837850.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 10:44:02 AM
You mean by allowing access for the general public?
I'm not seeing the conspiracies here.
That's the point. There are no conspiracies. The intent is quite well spelled out.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 10:45:38 AM
That's the point. There are no conspiracies. The intent is quite well spelled out.
Yes, I see how that is horrible.
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 10:47:52 AM
Yes, I see how that is horrible.
Towney, we perceive the bandwidth available today as significant and amazing, just as we thought a 9600 modem was freekin amazing when we replaced our 1200s.
Take private industry out of the equation, and you will retard innovation, and ultimately make access less affordable and highly regulated. Government will not simply flip a switch on transceivers and walk away. They will either build enormous bureaucracies and commissions, or they will subsidize existing providers to provide the service. When that happens all incentive to advance technology slows or halts, and subsidized providers for equipment and service become monopolistic.
Not really sure why we keep having to learn this lesson, but I suppose it's not a popular subject in schools any more.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 10:58:12 AM
Towney, we perceive the bandwidth available today as significant and amazing, just as we thought a 9600 modem was freekin amazing when we replaced our 1200s.
Take private industry out of the equation, and you will retard innovation, and ultimately make access less affordable and highly regulated. Government will not simply flip a switch on transceivers and walk away. They will either build enormous bureaucracies and commissions, or they will subsidize existing providers to provide the service. When that happens all incentive to advance technology slows or halts, and subsidized providers for equipment and service become monopolistic.
Not really sure why we keep having to learn this lesson, but I suppose it's not a popular subject in schools any more.
This is in addition to the existing...are you reading a different article?
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 11:05:59 AM
This is in addition to the existing...are you reading a different article?
But the argument is that it could possibly interfere with or cripple existing 4G signal. And if a fast wi-fi is available for free, why would anyone in their right mind still pay for a private service?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
But the argument is that it could possibly interfere with or cripple existing 4G signal. And if a fast wi-fi is available for free, why would anyone in their right mind still pay for a private service?
It's in the article.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 07:40:39 AM
Why on Earth would anyone want the government to take over internet service????????
Who said anything about taking over the internet? It is a proposal to provide the service on a wide basis. Wouldn't stop you or anyone else from getting their own if you thought there was a benefit above and beyond...
By the way, you do remember where the whole internet thing came from don't you? The government....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2013, 11:36:23 AM
By the way, you do remember where the whole internet thing came from don't you? The government....
If they had known it would become an unregulated tool of commerce, I believe that would be very different today. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
And if a fast wi-fi is available for free, why would anyone in their right mind still pay for a private service?
We could make it free only if someone qualifies for Food Stamps.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
And if a fast wi-fi is available for free, why would anyone in their right mind still pay for a private service?
What's wrong with using the free wifi?
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 12:48:26 PM
What's wrong with using the free wifi?
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/candh/images/3/36/OverYourHead.PNG)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 02:08:15 PM
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/candh/images/3/36/OverYourHead.PNG)
I'm sure everyone's pleased that you are against open free wifi.
I'm sure it's big government, poor people, or someone on welfare who's out to get you.
So other than everyone out to get Gaspar, what is wrong with the freeing up band for the general public.
And I mean other than the lobbyists getting fired.
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 02:10:38 PM
I'm sure everyone's pleased that you are against open free wifi.
I'm sure it's big government, poor people, or someone on welfare who's out to get you.
I am also against free electricity, free gasoline, free Cadillacs, and free beer (but that may be debatable).
If something has value, it is not free. If you remove it from the market you also remove the market forces that allow it to evolve.
My goal is not to please everyone. Sometimes people have to think too. ;)
So aside from Miss Paranoia McCrazy's idea that the government is giving away his stuff, does anyone else disagree with? :
QuoteDesigned by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan would be a global first. When the U.S. government made a limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in innovation followed. Baby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphones were created. Millions of homes now run their own wireless networks, connecting tablets, game consoles, kitchen appliances and security systems to the Internet.
"Freeing up unlicensed spectrum is a vibrantly free-market approach that offers low barriers to entry to innovators developing the technologies of the future and benefits consumers," Genachowski said in a an e-mailed statement.
Some companies and cities are already moving in this direction. Google is providing free WiFi to the public in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan and parts of Silicon Valley.
Cities support the idea because the networks would lower costs for schools and businesses or help vacationers easily find tourist spots. Consumer advocates note the benefits to the poor, who often cannot afford high cellphone and Internet bills.
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
So aside from Miss Paranoia McCrazy's idea that the government is giving away his stuff, does anyone else disagree with? :
I agree it's possible it could spur the next big tech boom. Or not.*
It's also entirely possible it
could eliminate for-profit internet providers and end up putting thousands of Americans out of work as a result. Once we have free wi-fi I'm pretty sure it will then be unfair for people to not be able to use it and a fantastic new government "administration" to oversee a program to issue tablets, laptops, and smart phones to those who can't afford them. We are already $16 trillion in debt, why not figure out more ways to keep digging that hole?
Lump me in with Gaspar as being a Miss Paranoia McCrazy, but government involvement and it's gradual creep into all aspects of our lives is not good.
In the last decade I'm pretty amazed to have seen free cell phones, health insurance, and birth control become a "right". Why do you think we are so far in debt? It's not all the result of tax breaks on the wealthy. We have an obvious spending problem to boot.
*Edited to add: I would like to think that the survival instincts of large players in telecom and the internet will dictate they find a way to profit in such an environment but when you are talking about a massive government program like this it's very hard to predict who will be the winners and the losers.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 03:21:48 PM
I agree it's possible it could spur the next big tech boom. Or not.*
It's also entirely possible it could eliminate for-profit internet providers and end up putting thousands of Americans out of work as a result. Once we have free wi-fi I'm pretty sure it will then be unfair for people to not be able to use it and a fantastic new government "administration" to oversee a program to issue tablets, laptops, and smart phones to those who can't afford them. We are already $16 trillion in debt, why not figure out more ways to keep digging that hole?
Lump me in with Gaspar as being a Miss Paranoia McCrazy, but government involvement and it's gradual creep into all aspects of our lives is not good.
In the last decade I'm pretty amazed to have seen free cell phones, health insurance, and birth control become a "right". Why do you think we are so far in debt? It's not all the result of tax breaks on the wealthy. We have an obvious spending problem to boot.
*Edited to add: I would like to think that the survival instincts of large players in telecom and the internet will dictate they find a way to profit in such an environment but when you are talking about a massive government program like this it's very hard to predict who will be the winners and the losers.
Dude, you are wacko!
Hey look. Nut job over here! ^^^^^
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 03:21:48 PM
I agree it's possible it could spur the next big tech boom. Or not.*
It's also entirely possible it could eliminate for-profit internet providers and end up putting thousands of Americans out of work as a result. Once we have free wi-fi I'm pretty sure it will then be unfair for people to not be able to use it and a fantastic new government "administration" to oversee a program to issue tablets, laptops, and smart phones to those who can't afford them. We are already $16 trillion in debt, why not figure out more ways to keep digging that hole?
Lump me in with Gaspar as being a Miss Paranoia McCrazy, but government involvement and it's gradual creep into all aspects of our lives is not good.
In the last decade I'm pretty amazed to have seen free cell phones, health insurance, and birth control become a "right". Why do you think we are so far in debt? It's not all the result of tax breaks on the wealthy. We have an obvious spending problem to boot.
*Edited to add: I would like to think that the survival instincts of large players in telecom and the internet will dictate they find a way to profit in such an environment but when you are talking about a massive government program like this it's very hard to predict who will be the winners and the losers.
You and I are reading the article differently. McCrazy's trying to fit his normal arguments into another thread and it's sad.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 12:32:17 PM
If they had known it would become an unregulated tool of commerce, I believe that would be very different today. ;)
I'll type slowly so you can get it the first time...
It was specifically designed by the visionaries who took what DARPA had started and ran with it. Spurred on by guys like Al Gore, who actually indeed WAS one of the guys in the Senate who pushed very hard to make it happen. So, that would mean he is at least one of a few creators of the internet.
Man, that just chaps the donkey of the RWRE in a big way....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2013, 03:42:57 PM
I'll type slowly so you can get it the first time...
It was specifically designed by the visionaries who took what DARPA had started and ran with it. Spurred on by guys like Al Gore, who actually indeed WAS one of the guys in the Senate who pushed very hard to make it happen. So, that would mean he is at least one of a few creators of the internet.
Man, that just chaps the donkey of the RWRE in a big way....
Oh boy. We're not talking about Al Gore here. Isn't there a marijuana thread that needs your attention?
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 03:41:19 PM
You and I are reading the article differently. McCrazy's trying to fit his normal arguments into another thread and it's sad.
Here's my read:
-Government wants to hand over a new frequency spectrum
-Goal is free wi-fi for everyone
-Wireless industry says it's a bad idea
Is the government going to hand it over and pay someone billions to operate and maintain the wi-fi or manage and operate it themselves? It's pretty obvious it won't appear like manna and exist in a vacuum once it's created. Obviously someone stands to make money on creating hot-spots but that's about as permanent as bridge projects.
Just seems to me like another government program which will end up in the hands of the best paying lobbyist and will end up costing far more than CBO estimates, which is little better than throwing darts to arrive at a conclusion.
There is obviously more which needs to come out of the FCC in terms of research and facts.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 04:02:13 PM
There is obviously more which needs to come out of the FCC in terms of research and facts.
No matter what comes out there will be the side that claims it's the government taking control of the internet.
Just like when they took control of the garage door openers according to the article.
QuoteWhen the U.S. government made a limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in innovation followed. Baby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphones were created.
It's illegal for me to buy votes, but if I promise to give away something for free, most of them will vote for me.
(http://www.tylershores.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/HomerThinking.gif)
Does anyone think there is a shadow of a chance that politicians are not already jockeying for position in using this new FCC recommendation as part of their new platform?
I mean come on. This article is a tickler to frame the conversation. Look at how it is received on this forum.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 04:14:02 PM
Does anyone think there is a shadow of a chance that politicians are not already jockeying for position in using this new FCC recommendation as part of their new platform?
I mean come on. This article is a tickler to frame the conversation. Look at how it is received on this forum.
Already mentioned in the article.
QuoteThe FCC's plan is part of a broader strategy to repurpose entire swaths of the nation's airwaves to accomplish a number of goals, including bolstering cellular networks and creating a dedicated channel for emergency responders.
Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Genachowski for his idea of creating free WiFi networks, noting that an auction of the airwaves would raise billions for the U.S. Treasury.
That sentiment echoes arguments made by companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Intel and Qualcomm, in a letter to the FCC staff late last month, that the government should focus its attention on selling the airwaves to businesses.
Anyone have a guess who and where bread is buttered in this?
Quote from: Townsend on February 05, 2013, 04:08:25 PM
No matter what comes out there will be the side that claims it's the government taking control of the internet.
Just like when they took control of the garage door openers according to the article.
ERMAHGERD!!! THEY TERK ER DER ERPERNERS!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2013, 04:40:53 PM
ERMAHGERD!!! THEY TERK ER DER ERPERNERS!
Tracking when we leave and come back home.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 03:57:18 PM
Oh boy. We're not talking about Al Gore here. Isn't there a marijuana thread that needs your attention?
Just a quick history note since you obviously missed it when going through school.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 05, 2013, 10:58:12 AM
Take private industry out of the equation, and you will retard innovation, and ultimately make access less affordable and highly regulated.
That's funny. The highest speed networks in the country are almost all run/sponsored by by local governments. This is because duopolies are no better than monopolies which are no better than government running the damn thing in the first place. Only with real competition does the market actually work like Gaspar wishes it would. Your cable bill should be proof enough that there is no real competition among the folks who string wire to your house.
Of course, when the government tried to increase competitive forces by requiring that wire owners lease said wire to other companies it was decided that was also decided by right wingers to be an awful and anticompetitive thing. And then, during the Bush administration it was decided that despite the law continuing to require that arrangement that the law could be ignored.
Also, you get all kinds of stuff at no charge that is worth something. Usually paid for by ads or as part of a marketing promotion. Go figure, dollars don't equal value after all.
Quote from: nathanm on February 06, 2013, 06:14:07 PM
Also, you get all kinds of stuff at no charge that is worth something. Usually paid for by ads or as part of a marketing promotion. Go figure, dollars don't equal value after all.
That is not something for nothing. You as a consumer represent the value being given for said good or service, and that good or service is paid for based on the provider's ability to target the appropriate audience to sell their product. As the consumer, you are not getting anything for free, you are receiving something in exchange for your exposure to the advertising. Value is exchanged voluntarily. If you don't want to be subject to the advertising, you may choose not to use the service offered.
When the government provides a good or service for "free", they do it through force, and without the risk of competitive pressure. The consumer of the good or service may feel like they are getting something for "free," however that good or service has value, and that value must come from somewhere. In the example of public internet networks, you would have equipment, electricity, human capital and a bureaucracy to fund. Since there is no voluntary exchange of value from consumer for the service, that value must be extracted by force through taxation and the threat of imprisonment.
Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions. – Milton Friedman
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington
Perhaps you want to do a little more research into what the actual proposal is before going off on another libertarian rant. I would expect that you would be in favor of more unlicensed spectrum. Oh, wait, Obama is still President. Good to know your reflexes are still working.