April 18, 2008 8:23 AM PDT

Politicos want free wireless broadband on unused airwaves

This story was updated at 11:40 a.m. PDT with correct units for DSL broadband speeds currently on the market.

A Silicon Valley Democrat in the U.S. Congress is proposing a new auction of unused radio spectrum, but with some ambitious strings attached: The winner would have to offer a free, wireless broadband network that reaches 95 percent of the American population within a decade.

Voicing disappointment that familiar large wireless carriers scooped up the most significant share of airwaves in a recently concluded auction, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act, which would direct the Federal Communications Commission to auction off a band of wireless spectrum between 2,155 megahertz and 2,180MHz that currently lies fallow and impose detailed rules on the winning bidder. Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who leads a House telecommunications and Internet panel, and Rep. Chris Cannon, a Utah Republican, have signed on as co-sponsors.

Under the proposed measure, aside from offering the free broadband network, the network operator would have to:
• begin offering "always-on" broadband service within two years of receiving the license
• offer a service free of subscription fees, airtime, usage or other charges to consumers and "authorized public safety users"
• ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobits per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 kilobits per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines)
• outfit the free service with "a technology protection measure or measures that protect underage users from accessing obscene or indecent material through such service"
• publish royalty-free standards so that others can develop and deploy equipment that can operate on the network

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

"While the auction required under this legislation is open to anyone, it is my hope that the bold conditions of requiring free, family friendly service will encourage the entry of a new kind of national broadband service provider," Eshoo said in a statement.

The requirements, however, sound strikingly similar to a plan that a Silicon Valley start-up called M2Z Networks offered to the FCC in recent years.

Specifically, M2Z sought permission to obtain a 15-year exclusive, nationwide license to essentially the same band of spectrum described in the Eshoo bill. It wanted to offer a "free," advertising-supported tier of service that would offer speeds of at least 384Kbps down and 128Kbps up, and a "premium" tier with 3Mbps speeds. And, like the Eshoo bill, M2Z pledged to reach 95 percent of the American population within 10 years and outfit the free tier with filters designed to block obscene content.

The FCC dismissed that petition, opting to undertake its usual public comment and rulemaking process before deciding who would control the spectrum. It has reportedly already begun moving ahead with that process, although it wasn't clear when it would finish.

An Eshoo aide said her boss had conversations with M2Z while drafting the bill, but her motivation was "primarily to provide alternative means of broadband access for more Americans, and this fallow spectrum seemed to be a real opportunity."

M2Z CEO John Muleta said the bill's introduction is a hopeful sign for would-be new entrants like his firm. "What we've been advocating for is, there needs to be new entry, not necessarily more regulation, to do innovative and unusual things that would get more broadband to more people," he said in a telephone interview with CNET News.com.

An array of consumer groups supported M2Z's idea, but the wireless industry opposed its original petition, calling it a "self-serving attempt to gain access to valuable spectrum outside of the auction process."

The new House proposal doesn't appear to be much better in the industry's eyes. Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, said his group objects to the stringent conditions it would impose on bidders, saying flexible conditions would ultimately raise more money for the federal treasury.

"We agree with Congresswoman Eshoo that additional spectrum must be made available and we look forward to working with her on this important endeavor," he said in an e-mail on Friday. "However, mandating how providers should deploy and use such spectrum is something we can't support."

Recent posts from News Blog
Yahoo tries to conceal lawsuit documents
HP to launch fall line of teen PC products
Hooray! Yahoo Mail ditches tagline ads
Conde Nast buys Ars Technica
Sugar Labs will make OLPC interface available for Eee PC, others
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 44 comments (Page 1 of 2)
Typo?
by czmabran81 April 18, 2008 9:36 AM PDT
The following sentence seems incorrect to me: ? ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobits per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 megabits per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines) You probably meant: ? ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobytes per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 kilobytes per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines)
Reply to this comment View reply
Who would buy THAT?
by amadensor April 18, 2008 10:15 AM PDT
So, I have to spend a lot of money for the spectrum, then somebody else tells me how to use it. On top of that they tell me how much to charge, end even worse, the amount is zero. Now, they add on criteria saying that I am responsible for content filtering as well? No thanks.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Thanks Santa Claus!
by scdecade April 18, 2008 11:02 AM PDT
Politicos: get up off your lazy corrupt pork-barrel butts and stop the war. Don't do anything else until you stop the war.
Reply to this comment
It's not "free"
by ToddWBeaver April 18, 2008 11:35 AM PDT
Politicians love to give away "free" things bought with our tax money. There's nothing free about it, unless you're in Congress. Tax dollars come from somewhere and last I heard, they weren't from donations.
Reply to this comment
Another clueless California Democrat
by David Arbogast April 18, 2008 11:37 AM PDT
Very few modern democrats have any clue what the term "Freedom" means. They see every problem in the country as an opportunity for new government mandates and programs. News flash: The Federal Government is NOT an ISP! Eshoo is just another fool because she sees every problem as a federal government problem and she has no idea and no care about the problems she will create by assuming the federal government actually can be an answer to all the country's problems. And to make matters worse, she sees the lack of free wireless internet as a problem! Go home, Anna. You have no idea what role the federal government is supposed to play in American society. You don't dictate private business operations. You have no right to set or control product pricing for private companies. You have no idea what it means to be an ISP - no idea what your amazing solution means long-term - no care or thought about how it will impact society, American business, or the taxpayers - no idea, beyond the immediate glow of self praise, what the full impacts of your government domination plan will realize. Anna Eshoo reminds me of my high-school class president: "And if you vote for me, I'll make sure you can buy soda from the Pepsi machine in the teacher's lounge!" What do you think existing ISPs are gonig to do when suddenly their market is penetrated by a government-mandated "Free" service?? Oh sure... this'll be good for job, the economy, and my quality of service... SURE.....
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Zero Cost Infrastructure!
by kingsnoofer April 18, 2008 11:46 AM PDT
Wow! So we did it! We finally found a way to operate an internet service provider, delivering decent speeds to a theoretically unlimited number of subscribers without the cost of upkeep of equipment, salaries, consumables, etc! This is fabulous! So if whichever company buys this spectrum can provide the service without incurring charges themselves why can't current inet providers do the same? I guess they are all just telling us that their computers, lines, and employees cost them money so they can charge us. What an insidious scandal! Wait...what was that? You say that equipment and personnel DO cost money? So...um...how can this service be provided for free? Ah. I get it. The government that is pushing for this must be paying the overhead. So why doesn't the government just buy the sectrum and administer it themselves? If they are paying for the infrastructure and other costs anyway...
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
This bandwidth
by PzkwVIb April 18, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
brought to you by the government. Now with mandatory elimination of First Ammendment Rights. Will these idiots ever learn? Families are Family friendly. Free speech is not Family Friendly and it does not need to be.
Reply to this comment
Another waste of time...
by gefitz April 18, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
Listen, there are so many things wrong with this bill that are patently obvious. But more obvious is the fact that Silicon Valley is in this particular politicians pocket. Of course the proposal looks familiar! It's the same proposal the FCC passed on before. But we never take no for an answer, so...unleash the lobbyists! Of course the politician and advisors know nothing about long-term maintenance, or about REQUIRING filtering from the segment of society that will be using this service (those who cannot afford to pay for broadband unfettered by filters). I would not worry too much about this proposal. It will not survive First Amendment tests, even if passed and signed by the sitting prez.
Reply to this comment
Why are people so shortsighted
by The_Decider April 18, 2008 1:56 PM PDT
It doesn't mean that the entire spectrum be used in this manner. There will be plenty of space for whoever buys it to profit, the fact that they will actually be forced to do something of huge benefit to everyone is a bonus. The greed model is what got us to the horrible mess we are in today. More greed driven ideas will not help us. Why do other countries have much better connectivity for example? Because in other countries, corporations also have an obligation to serve their communities. That is why the US is failing.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
I love the idea
by The Wiethoff April 18, 2008 2:45 PM PDT
Too bad it is the dumbest thing I have heard. There has to be some strings attached somewhere. Even the "free" internet providers that were dialup based with a much lower operating cost have gone away because they couldn't make money. Add the infrastructure cost and it is a crazy venture. Ask netzero, or kmart.
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop

  2. Photos: Cracking open the Atari 2600

  3. This VC forecast scares the pants off of me

  4. End of Intel, AMD duopoly near? Via readies Isaiah chip

  5. Photos: Microsoft previews 2008 Xbox games

Latest tech news headlines

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman

Green Tech

One More Thing by Tom Krazit

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh

The Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

advertisement
On MovieTome: THE INCREDIBLE HULK trailer is here!
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: