The FCC’s Proposal For A Free Nationwide Wireless Network
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-05/fcc%E2%80%99s-proposal-free-nationwide-wireless-network
Access to the Internet has grown from just 10 million people in the early '90s to more than 2.5 billion today. But a third of households in the U.S. still don’t have high speed internet access because they can’t afford it. To address the growing “digital divide,” the federal government is proposing the creation of a free, public wireless network nationwide. But the plan faces opposition from telecom companies who say valuable spectrum should be sold at auction and not given away for free. And they warn that unlicensed airwaves could interfere with existing broadcasts. Diane and a panel of experts discuss the pros and cons of free Wi-Fi.
Guests
Scott Cleland
president of Precursor LLC, a research consultancy for Fortune 500 companies, and Chairman of NetCompetition, a pro-competition e-forum supported by broadband companies.
Susan Crawford
professor of Cardozo Law School, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former technology adviser to President Barack Obama.
Todd Shields
reporter at Bloomberg News.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Wireless for everyone. Thank you Susan Crawford and her book, "Captive Audience."
Don
The City of Cleveland did it in the Old Brooklyn neighborhood. It is doable. I wish we had it everywhere. It`s like free radio and tv. Our technology is changing and improving,so should our availability. I`m tired or corporate greed and rip offs.
Considering that the original "internet" was comprised of public supported devices (i.e. DARPANET computers, public universities, et al) and still has a significant public paid base and government facilities, there is a good rationale for making access either free or VERY low cost. Providers are charging outrageous fees for maintenance of aged wiring and devices. e.g. Cable wiring in and to a home may be many decades old....the price goes up with no real costs to the providers, whether that is coax or twisted pair. ATT and cable companies are adding fiber optics to business nets but few, if any, to home nets.
The real issues for internet access involve the sophistication needed for real security and privacy.....hack-proof encrypted use for citizens.
One might also wonder why TV bands were moved to required digital signals, but broadcast radio still is analog. Why did radio stay in the 18th century by comparison?
How did people get so gullible?
Nothings "free", especially from the government.
What this tells me is that the government wants to chose who gets airwave contracts and who does not. All I see here is another federal government power grab.
Looks like big democrat donors like it, there's a surprise!
"Microsoft, Google folks are top sources for Obama funds"
"The Plplan would require TV stations in local markets to sell a portion of their airwaves to the federal government, which would then make them available as public Wi-Fi networks."
"The proposal by the FCC to create a free, powerful, Wi-Fi network nationwide is raising strong objections from the existing carriers and cable operators. AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless, among others, have written to the FCC that it should sell the airwaves to private operators. But Google and Microsoft have expressed support for the FCC's proposal."
Microsoft, Google folks are top sources for Obama funds
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57503053-38/microsoft-google-folks-are...
Any city or community that offers free wifi,could recoup the cost by selling advertising on the start up,or log in page.We need to go in the correct direction. Taking valuable government assets,and handing them over to privateers is a fools mission. Leasing toll roads,prisons,and lotteries,so someone else can make money is stupid,and violates the trust of the people. The job of politicians is to optimize government efficiency and cost,not to stick it in the taxpayer`s azz at every opportunity. "STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES"... the ideology of "SMALL GOV MENT" proponents.
I agree that Free WiFi would be a brilliant economic step. Hopefully there would be less of a barrier to increasing bandwidth.
The first negative thought that came to mind was the issue of personal liberty and surveillance. Since telecom companies have not done much to protect personal privacy or providing information to the government, I don't see the need to pay for a "middle man."
However, I do think we would need to be wary that "Free" services do come with a cost, a similar lesson now being paid attention to with Instagram and Facebook. So we do need to account for the pros and cons of Free WiFi vs. WiFi from telecom companies.
--Emanuel II
I agree that Free WiFi would be a brilliant economic step. Hopefully there would be less of a barrier to increasing bandwidth.
The first negative thought that came to mind was the issue of personal liberty and surveillance. Since telecom companies have not done much to protect personal privacy or providing information to the government, I don't see the need to pay for a "middle man."
However, I do think we would need to be wary that "Free" services do come with a cost, a similar lesson now being paid attention to with Instagram and Facebook. So we do need to account for the pros and cons of Free WiFi vs. WiFi from telecom companies.
--Emanuel II
The Dandies of this world are free to share their meager wages with Time Warner or Charter or other ISPs for slow service on a narrow bandwidth while the rest of us enjoy free WiFi and mobile access. I'd be the last to deny any patient access to a private quack out of their own pocket under socialized medicine, and that's what universal Wi Fi is: good medicine. In the same way not for profit medicine would take the strain off the workplace and the family, this development would make our depressed wages go much farther in stimulating the economy.
Cliff in Parma doesn't get the radio frequency thing. If new radios had been required to hear Clear Channel no one would have bought them and the poison fruit would have withered on the vine. Nazi entertaiment radio would then have to compete with Cash Cab and Ricki Lake to get on cable. Nazi entertainment radio is an effective means of brainwashing low waged White men, and the Oligarchy can't afford to lose it. Nihilism might die out without constant mind colonizing.
The attempt at free WiFi was the best thing Mayor John Street ever did for Philadelphia.
If Dan D. opposes Google and Microsoft donating large sums to politicians' campaigns he needs to work harder to overturn Citizens United.
I agree that "nothing is free" but it is always cheaper without the middleman.
Pancake Rankin wrote: "Nazi entertainment radio is an effective means of brainwashing"
You may have a point for a change but...
This latest "FREE" stuff does sound a bit familiar
German Volksempfaenger
The People's Radio
Using only three tubes, this is a very simple radio by late-1930s standards.
Why so simple?
The Volksempfänger was sold for propaganda purposes during the Nazi years. Low price made it affordable to the masses.
This would kill the Market faster than free TV and Radio did. We have barely managed to survive the last 50 years with this free over the air service. Same thing if the govt gets involved in spreading telephones and electricity to rural areas, it will never work. Same if the government were to get involved in creating electricity in the Tennessee Valley. Right?
This is a big problem for most Americans. The idea that things are "free".
It reminds me of a story about free school lunchs.
Supposedly there was a debate in Congress back in the day when free school lunches were really controversial. Supposedly one senator spent a good deal of time railing against "free school lunches".
When he was finished, another senator said, "Senator, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If that lunch exists at all, it's because someone had to pay for it."
A lot of those who oppose taxes of any kind should think about this. You might want taxes cut. And they could be cut. But if the highways aren't repaired and the bridges eventually collapse, you don't have any cause to complain about why it happened.
The truth is: some one, some day, some way, WILL have to pay for this "free" Wi-Fi.
Right now, as pointed out, there are an awful lot of Free Marketeers using free radio spectrum to spread the message of no socialized markets. A large swath of their listeners get their electricity from govt supplied electric plants, government subsidized nuclear plants etc.
We've already given thirty channels of our broadcast TV spectrum over to telecomm giants. Is this deal going to cost us even more of that?
This guy Scott Cleland and his "pro-competition" claim is a joke. If we had genuine competition in the US, i would not be paying $122/month that is mediocre at best. Additionally, telecoms would be investing in their infrastructure, rather than just using what the government built with tax-payer dollars. Telecoms use regulatory capture to get all these things at the expense of the tax payer.
What a joke this guy is, he is now talking about geography. The old, "but, the US is BIG" joke.
This is not about a "free" wireless network. It is about making sure there is more spectrum that anyone can use to innovate and connect.
We don't have a dedicated lane on the highway for every potential user, we share it and nearly always avoid hitting each other. The FCC needs to stop giving exclusive spectrum to the big companies and instead expand unlicensed spectrum, like Wi-Fi.
This enables maximium innovation. The big cell companies hate it because it hurts their monopoly.
Another set of folks that need program availability are those who work at national parks and those who are living in areas that are not served by the predominant networks. It is hard to get enough towers in these areas so this new program with fewer towers would be cheaper to get connectivity to them. These people are off the grid.
I would really like this, but some thought needs to be given to how the hardware and software running the environment is going to change in a dynamic fashion, given the slow process of legislation in the Federal government. This is a very dynamic area in terms of both technology and security. Otherwise this will evolve into the 'have not network' as new technologies come into play.
A commercial model, similar to broadcast TV, might be a better proposal.
If the cell companies are worried about competition, they should compete on quality of service. People will pay a premium for this.
We live in northern Michigan where access to high speed internet is available at a price. The price is too high for a one income family. We go to the local library or fast food restaurant when we need to get online. We keep hearing rumors about better coverage and see progress being made but at a dial up speed!
@homecles
It is not a funny joke. Cleland makes tons of money saying whatever AT&T, Verizon, etc ask him to say. We all end up paying for it in higher bills because we have fewer choices. So frustrating.
As a Telecom Engineer, I am curious as to who would be paying for maintenance of the network once built. It's not cheap to place fiber, even if you use a Hybrid Coax/ Fiber network.
I've been in the telecom industry since the 70s and have personally been instrumental in developing many of today's wireless and wireline technologies. So I've gotten to live this first hand.
In the early 1900s the government's Rural Electrification Administration brought both electricity and telephone service to most of rural America. Thats how and why rural America evolved as it has.
Today, the large monopolistic telecom players have had plenty of opportunity to extend viable broadband service into rural America but have chosen not to because of the "problematic economics". They want to stay in markets where the profit margin is greatest.
The bottom line is that the future viability of American life and business is dependent on getting 21st century technological capability to most Americans.
I laud the FCCs initiative. We've been talking about it way too long and doing nothing. Sound familiar?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Diane, I find it difficult to understand how and why FCC is considering increasing wireless radiation exposure at the same time they are also deciding whether or not to revise their exposure guidelines regarding human health.
Super wifi is very powerful, penetrates cement walls, etc. What about the people who live near those towers. Scientific peer-reviewed studies show that people who live near TV, cell and radio towers are up to 10 times more likely to die of cancer; studies to follow.
May 31, 2011: International Agency for Research on Cancer of WHO classifies RF as a Class 2B carcinogen.
Has FCC thoroughly informed the public of this.
Wireless laptops and tablets expose the public to higher levels radiation than cell phones. FCC is responsible for public health policy in this area, yet they are not a Health Agency. They are a Trade Agency.
No one has mentioned interoperability!!! This is a monopoly by AT&T
I read in an article that some company was going to try to recycle phone booths into wifi hotspots since no one really uses phone booths anymore. Would that help to make this idea of free nationwide wireless internet possible?
1. The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer (PDF) (German study)
The Naila Study. Eger H et al, (2004) Influence of the spatial proximity of mobile phone base stations on cancer rates. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 17:273-356
"The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the last ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.”
2. Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station (PDF) (Israel study)
Wolf R, Wolf D, (April 2004) Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2) April 2004 http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207_israel.pdf
"A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."
This study, based on medical records of people living within 350 metres of a long established phone mast, showed a fourfold increased incidence of cancer generally compared with the general population of Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast.
This country needs to upgrade its internet for all people. We need a competitive market. I liken it to the introduction of electricity in the last century. Powerful interests didn't want large parts of this country electrified. To them, it would be cost prohibitive. I see the same thing happening today with internet access. I am not looking for free internet. Low cost internet is the goal with access for all. Do you think the big Telecom companies want low cost Internet, I think not.
3. Environmental Epidemiological Study of Cancer Incidence in the Municipalities of Hausmannstätten & Vasoldsberg (Austria) (PDF)
4. http://www.emrsa.co.za/documents/brazilresearch.pdf.
5. http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Lev...
6. http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/LaQuintacancercluster.pdf
I think that the FCC's statements are interesting and I would like to see other steps that might be taken to allow community and government investment in broadband delivery.
In North Carolina, there was a law passed during the 2011/2012 legislative session to limit municipal investment in providing broadband. Given the shifting position of the FCC, I'd like to hear comments about the FCC's ability to promote community and government investment, either by spectrum licensing or regulation.