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.
Quoth Janscone:I find it concerning that there is a foundation of thought that we are entitled to internet or wifi access. The example of children doing their homework research at a McDonald's is meant to engender sympathy for these children, but I ask, what about public libraries? What about the computer labs any many, many schools - even in poorer school districts?
School computer labs aren’t accessible evenings and weekends. If Mom & Dad want to be involved with the kid’s homework, helping or monitoring, then the homework needs to be done when and where the parents can be involved.
What incentive will there be for an individual to work hard in order to afford the comfort and convenience of in-home internet/wifi if it is provided to them for free?
It’s entirely possible to work hard 40+ hours per week and still be poor – I know people in exactly that situation. Wages have been going down, in case anyone’s forgotten.
And finally, this gem: I ask you, do we really believe that once people are connected at home, it will only be used for intellectual purposes? We should have open hands towards the poor and give them access to the means to escape poverty; not just give expensive technical perks for free without any accountability.
Silly me – I forgot that only the well-off deserve to have any entertainment or enjoyment in life, and people who don’t make a lot of money should be required to forego any and all non-intellectual or non-work activities as punishment for being less than wealthy.
I suppose there's little point in reminding you that a home internet connection is invaluable for anyone who is perhaps searching for a better job, given how many employers these days prefer to take applications online and receive resumes via e-mail. Those poor people who might be getting underpaid on their current jobs should just suck it up and 'work harder', right?
The Diane Rehm Show Diane, Fantastic special this morning on the FCC's proposal for free nationwide wi-fi access. It would've been great if the FCC could've played more a part in this conversation; hopefully they reach out to your team and do a follow-up. I felt like yesterday's Washington Post article was a little old or mis-leading news. The only new part of the story was the recently multi-faceted "auction" that that the FCC is going to hold for a chunk of spectrum currently held by the broadcasters…the auction is suppose to offer incentives to broadcasters to offer up their unused spectrum - and then the FCC will auction them off (while also designating a portion of that spectrum for unlicensed uses).
While making this access to additional spectrum is necessary for wi-fi, it does not make it free…we'll still have to have someone step-up and cover the costs of the backhaul and service necessary for providing wireless network access. The FCC seems to be quiet on how this supposed "free wi-fi" is going to be possible; unless they're hoping for folks like Google to step up and do what they did in Chelsea, New York (which of course, why wouldn't they do that and get more people online and seeing their ad based business model).
As an aside, you also discussed the "digital divide" in America today…if you do a followup on the topic I would love to hear your show/panelists specifically address our Native American tribes, where the digital divide seems be widest/most-prevalent.
The Diane Rehm Show Diane, Fantastic special this morning on the FCC's proposal for free nationwide wi-fi access. It would've been great if the FCC could've played more a part in this conversation; hopefully they reach out to your team and do a follow-up. I felt like yesterday's Washington Post article was a little old or mis-leading news. The only new part of the story was the recently multi-faceted "auction" that that the FCC is going to hold for a chunk of spectrum currently held by the broadcasters…the auction is suppose to offer incentives to broadcasters to offer up their unused spectrum - and then the FCC will auction them off (while also designating a portion of that spectrum for unlicensed uses).
While making this access to additional spectrum is necessary for wi-fi, it does not make it free…we'll still have to have someone step-up and cover the costs of the backhaul and service necessary for providing wireless network access. The FCC seems to be quiet on how this supposed "free wi-fi" is going to be possible; unless they're hoping for folks like Google to step up and do what they did in Chelsea, New York (which of course, why wouldn't they do that and get more people online and seeing their ad based business model).
As an aside, you also discussed the "digital divide" in America today…if you do a followup on the topic I would love to hear your show/panelists specifically address our Native American tribes, where the digital divide seems be widest/most-prevalent.
gary k wrote:
"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."
Typical. The liberal progressives always throw up the "highways and bridges repairs" example (i.e. infrastructure - the constitutionally proper role of government) as the punishment for low taxes - but NEVER the welfare programs in which government has no constitutional place.
The Federal Government spends too much in places where it has no business under the Constitution; roads, army, post office, mint, and a few others are its proper purview.
And then liberals complain about lobbyists in Washington D.C. Surprise! That's where all the money and power is! Duh. Turn off the spiggot, return the FG to its proper bounds, and the special interests will dry up.
Really? What part of "promote the general welfare" is it you don't understand, ecgberht2?
the_coffeebuzz wrote:"What part of "promote the general welfare" is it you don't understand"
Right back at ya, you don't have a clue what that means.
It's plain English, Dan. My native language.
A superficial understanding of anything is to understand nothing.
An informed, educated, participatory populace is a promotion of the general welfare of the nation. Access to the means of obtaining and disseminating information and to full communication is essential to that participation and education. A generation ago one could get by with radio, television and newspapers, but today the internet has become a major and in some cases primary channel for participation -- due in part to its interactive potential, as evidenced right here in this comment section.
Those who don't have internet access are at a disadvantage, and that ultimately detracts from the overal quality of public life in the United States.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
I believe that a nationwide wireless net is inevitable and has many promising possibilities... and possible pitfalls. And, for all of you thinking that this will be a "freebie" I also know that there is no such thing as a free lunch... When Uncle Sam is involved, strings are always attached. Be they in the way of regulation or in the form of taxation on the back side.
You may view what I just said as....OK... here is another conspiracy theory nut case.. but I view myself as more of a realist.
Exposure to wi-fi is is causing all kinds of health concerns...the simplest demonstration I can give you is from children that are being exposed to it in their classrooms and having immediate reactions to the microwave frequencies being used. The 902-928 Mhz sprectrum is wreaking havoc already. Stop and consider what will become of the manmade environmental disaster far eclipsing any global warming concerns.
Think about how long it took for for asbestos and lead to be determined to be hazardous to our health? How long did it take for it the materials to be removed from our construction materials, gas tanks and paint cans?
Over 20 years later people are still embroiled in legal battles. Is this what we want for our future of humanity?
http://www.safeinschool.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBSpiFydzoY
How else are guys in the desert going to be able to stream porn and update their Facebood relationship status? Seriously, according to Susan, watching TV is the highest and best use of the internet. Pathetic.
There is no such thing as free wifi. Somebody's paying for it.
If you can't afford a tv, you can't afford a computer, so free wifi is of no value to you.
I live in one of the 79% of areas where there are three platforms through which I could get broadband access; actually, I think it's four if ClearWire is still in existence.
the_coffeebuzz wrote:
"An informed, educated, participatory populace is a promotion of the general welfare of the nation...Those who don't have internet access are at a disadvantage, and that ultimately detracts from the overal quality of public life in the United States."
Sorry, coffee. That argument can be used to justify anything by the FG. Need food stamps? "General welfare". Need a cell phone? "General welfare". Neen an abortion? "General welfare". Explain to me how the FG making any kind of payment to an individual person benefits "the general welfare".
Dan D. has the salient quotes on this subject, so I'll just repeat the Jefferson quote:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
And to that I would add the adulteration of the Commerce clause. With the current interpretation, coming from no less than SCOTUS, anything can be defined as commerce, virtually all commerce spans states, therefore the FG can take jurisdiction. The reason I know that the Commerce clause and the "general welfare" clause have been misinterpreted and misused is because they render the rest of Article 1 moot. The Framers could have just said, "Congress can do whatever they want". But ... they didn't.
As to the subject at hand, I'm not really sure yet if this is a good idea yet. But there are certainly a lot of good and bad points on either side.
the_coffeebuzz wrote:
"Those who don't have internet access are at a disadvantage, and that ultimately detracts from the overal quality of public life in the United States."
Coffee that's a nice flowery way of saying you think that John Q public deserves a new "entitlement" given in the name of increasing educational opportunities, but paid for by every tax payer... if your premise is to not support this initiative thru taxes but thru the "private sector" then....
the question is...do you add 10 minutes of advertising to the process of accessing your new wifi network so that some of the costs are covered by big corporations, so that they can in turn add that advertising cost back into the selling price of their goods and services which are sold to John Q public (who subsidized their greedy butts weather we thought so or not) in the first place? if so then... HERE WE GO AGAIN....
Hello All,
A compelling gesture to be sure, I encourage readers to have a look at the following, Things are not as they have been reported.
« What Would Happen If America Got Free, ‘Nationwide’ WiFi? Google Wins, Carriers Lose
http://www.wire-news.com/what-would-happen-if-america-got-free-nationwid...
The “Free Wi-Fi” Confusion
http://www.wire-news.com/the-free-wi-fi-confusion/
The truth about ‘free Wi-Fi’
http://www.wire-news.com/the-truth-about-free-wi-fi/
No, free Wi-Fi isn't coming to every US city
http://www.wire-news.com/no-free-wi-fi-isnt-coming-to-every-us-city/
Richard Dennis
http://wire-news.com
Why was Scott Cleland even on the show? He seems paid by the industry.
He starts to paint this rosy picture of the status of wired and wireless broadband access in the US; when independent research proves the US lags behind other developed nations. Broadbandmap.gov is skewed because it uses "advertised" capacity per ZIP code. My zip code is listed at 50mbps, yet the fastest service for us is 10mbps and only 3.5mbps actual.
We largely have a duopoly in most markets with lockstep tiered pricing. So it is very easy to cite these marketing / idealized numbers when the capacity is overstated or the public simply can't afford them.
We have wireless "broadband" on our smartphones with the #1 provider. We are lucky if they don't drop the connection or miss calls. For wireless, the US is at an instant disadvantage because we can't even roam on half the capacity in the United States because it has two incompatible systems.
All the big providers have the same inflated prices seniors and people with lower incomes can't afford.
We see all the promos with "fantastic" prices that are just introductory for 6-12 months. Then people can't afford them any more at $150+/mo. Three basic services (local phone, basic tv, dsl internet) literally went from $50+/mo to $100+/mo. If you don't "bundle" you can't get the best rate per service.
People are cutting service, because they no longer can or want to afford it. That's why the net number of accounts with some providers are dropping. It is not because of competition. It is because of ever increasing service rates and record profit taking ...
The digital divide is real and will get worse.
Very soon everybody with basic cable will need to rent a digital cable box / adapter per TV set, as all cable signals will be encrypted. Shame on the FCC for siding with the industry and not looking after consumers when it comes to basic cable access.
"HonestAbe wrote:
...
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?
February 4, 2013 - 2:50 pm"
The whole AM radio Band is only a little over one MHz while each of 80 TV Channels required 6 MHz. A Lot of Bandwidth!!!
Several East Tennessee NPR FM Channels are broadcasting one fairly High Fidelity Digital Channel beside the Analog FM Carrier.
It may be possible to add another digital Channel on the other side of the carrier.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Somarstatic wrote:
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.
February 5, 2013 - 10:28 am"
An awful lot of Fiber was installed about 15 years ago.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail
"secoherence wrote:
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.
...
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
February 5, 2013 - 10:28 am"
A lot of the rural electrical power systems were cooperative- what could be more Free Market than that???
I haven't been back to Cleveland for years, but the big electric utility tried for years to crush the Cleveland Municipal Electric System in spite of the City system having a far better record than the big Guy.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Sara Workman wrote:
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...
February 5, 2013 - 10:29 am"
In a lot of places, they are being used as urinals!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Scott Cleland's claim that the US is the only country that has ubiquitous cable TV/internet access is flat out wrong. Norway, where I live has ubiquitous cable, and from what I can see it is the same in the rest of Scandinavia. It is also very widespread in Japan.
Where did all the Telecom Tax's (3 percent excise tax of 1898 & E-Rate, Better known As Gore Tax) go that were set aside to provide a cost effective "Information Superhighway"?
Icerabbit, you make good points. I made the decision last year to forego cable television due to a combination of inflated prices and the general dearth of programming that truly interests me. (Well, that and a life generally too busy with other activities to allow for more than occasional viewing.) I have a broadband internet connection through the cable company, however, as they are the only provider that has reliable service in my neighborhood. I live in a major city (Cleveland) whose wired broadband customers are held hostage to a pair of allegedly competing broadband giants, AT&T and Time Warner. And no, I don't get the best price because I don't purchase a bundle that includes TV or phone. My cellphone suffices for the rare calls I make/receive, and a Roku box connected to my internet router provides access to services like Netflix and Hulu should I want to actually watch something.
I work full-time but I don't earn enough money to pay for a lot of extras. I'm pursuing a mid-life career change to something more lucrative and am glad of the opportunity to access university courses online toward that goal -- something I wouldn't be able to do without broadband.
However, the bill for even just this one service, a simple broadband connection, keeps climbing. Broadband isn't really an "extra" for most users these days, and it certainly isn't for me. It's as essential as any other utility in my home. (Try studying differential equations at your local Burger King sometime and tell me how that goes. The library isn't even an option; most branches in our system close at 6pm or 7pm and I work until at least 5pm and stay later if I can get overtime.) I worry about being priced out of the ability to access the online resources I need, as much as any of us might worry about similarly skyrocketing costs of electricity or heating gas.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"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."
You don't get "free WiFi and mobile access", Pancake. Nothing is free ... you said it yourself. But you admit to stealing these services in the 1/10 thread, (" I'm stealing Internet right now from a neighbor's account and you should try that too. Buy one connection and share the access code") so I don't think you have much standing to comment. People like you who steal from "the man" think you're smart and "paying him back", what you are really doing is raising rates on the law respecting people who pay their bills. If anyone is a nihilist, it's you.
The Wireless Industry is the New Frontier. The perfect storm has been created for real game changing solutions. The major carrier's business model evolves around wired architecture that was designed primarily for voice. The United States is ranked #18 in the world for wireless technology because the U.S. was one of the first to build a cellular network which is now out dated for data services. Wifi needs to grow from 3% to 30% of wireless service. Individuals profited hugely from the cellular frontier and now we have a new frontier with the imploding data explosion!!! (Contact me for Info~)
I listened to the podcast of this show and was frustrated that the presenters disagreed strongly on whether the US was behind other developed nations in internet speed, cost and access. I looked this up, and found that the US is ranked 16th http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/ -- behind Sweden, South Korea, Japan, UK, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and we are actually losing ground.
According to journalist, Rick Karr, it is the lack of competition. I completely agree with this.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-...
While, one of the presenters would have disagreed and said that most Americans had access to and employed smaller internet companies, that was not my personal experience. I recently moved to Nashville, and I had two choices for fast internet: ATT and Comcast. That was it, and it was much more expensive than what I was paying when I lived in the UK the year before.
I listened to the podcast of this show and was frustrated that the presenters disagreed strongly on whether the US was behind other developed nations in internet speed, cost and access. I looked this up, and found that the US is ranked 16th http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/ -- behind Sweden, South Korea, Japan, UK, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and we are actually losing ground.
According to journalist, Rick Karr, it is the lack of competition. I completely agree with this.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-...
While, one of the presenters would have disagreed and said that most Americans had access to and employed smaller internet companies, that was not my personal experience. I recently moved to Nashville, and I had two choices for fast internet: ATT and Comcast. That was it, and it was much more expensive than what I was paying when I lived in the UK the year before.
Broadband is a social good and needs to be available to all. Because of the high capital cost of providing it, the present system of deployment with multiple providers rations the service to those who can pay and are in the right physical location. I pay $20 per month for crappy 1 Mbit AT&T DSL service (most they can provide in my suburban neighborhood of half million houses) and supplement that with Clear 4G service $60 per month. Much was made of how our competitive system beats others; this is not true, e.g., one of my German friends lives in a village 40 miles from Munich, buys 6 Mbit DSL from Deutsche Telecom for $25 per month. Why am I better off with competitive environment?