• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Free nationwide WiFi?

K

KeithE4

File this FCC proposal under "fat chance." Why? Let me count the ways.

1. The government competing with private business? No way. Even if it survives all court challenges, the government would screw up a one-car funeral.

2. The Telecom lobbyists will make sure this never sees the light of day. Broadcasters may have something to say about it as well.

3. Municipal WiFi has been tried and failed in most cases. If not through legal challenges (mainly from cable companies who claimed unfair competition), then because it just wasn't economical to build.

4. Didn't Congress mandate that the FCC sell spectrum to private enterprise for these purposes years ago?

Link: Washington Post
 
This does spin a bit differently when you read who's behind it. Hint: this is not about a socialist government trying to buy votes by giving something away -- it's about one group of for-profit businesses trying to improve their positions at the expense of a different group of for-profit businesses.

It would seem Google & Microsoft have determined some consumers aren't using their services and/or buying their products because they're unwilling or unable to pay the data charges. I would imagine both companies have developed applications & devices on which they believe they can make a profit, but which would require impractical amounts of data.

Free high-speed data would of course reduce/eliminate this reluctance & increase Google's and Microsoft's business. And, of course, it would do so with catastrophic effect on AT&T/Verizon/Sprint/etc...

I note the word "free" appears in this article only as what consumers will pay for access to these networks. It doesn't say the government will pay to construct/operate these networks. And it doesn't say the government will give away the necessary spectrum.

What I suspect the FCC & the tech companies are expecting to happen... is that the tech companies buy this spectrum from the government... and build & maintain the networks... and profit by advertising on these networks... and probably more profitably, by selling devices & services that nobody could afford to use at current data charges.

Or...

that this is strictly a negotiating tactic. That the tech companies want to use the threat of free universal WiFi as leverage to reduce the data rates charged by the telecom firms.

===

I believe that addresses Keith's points 1, 3, and 4. :)

It doesn't address point 2, which I think indeed is pretty likely to kill this initiative. Although, I'm certainly not going to risk any of my savings betting on the outcome of a battle between Microsoft and AT&T!
 
Never say never.

I can sense some sort of explosive public backlash building over telecoms
(and other businesses) always getting their way through K-Street lobbying.

Would not be surprised to see strong movements for a "public option" in
WiFi, Healthcare, Banking and other places in the not too distant future
(though I agree, Government will screw it up like the proverbial one car funeral)
 
Read somewhere this morning that looked at this in depth. Maybe the Tom Taylor news letter. Bottom line: the Post got it wrong--what they were looking at was the interim Notice from the FCC concerning the proposed spectrum auctions.

No free wi-fi. No free lunch, either.
 
I agree with TomT. It seems to me that the Post story is old, going back 4 years. It was a dream of Genachowski to bring free public wifi to all Americans. But he has no budget, no authority, and no time. I thought he was leaving the FCC once term 2 began.

Meanwhile, it's a great story, and I love the drama of Verizon & Comcast fighting Google and Microsoft. If Google & Microsoft want to fund it, it might happen. But a couple years ago broadcasters said they weren't interested in selling their licenses. So that's the end of it.
 
KeithE4 said:
Even if it survives all court challenges, the government would screw up a one-car funeral.
Click to expand...

FreddyE1977 said:
Never say never.

I can sense some sort of explosive public backlash building over telecoms
(and other businesses) always getting their way through K-Street lobbying.

Would not be surprised to see strong movements for a "public option" in
WiFi, Healthcare, Banking and other places in the not too distant future
(though I agree, Government will screw it up like the proverbial one car funeral)
Click to expand...

Appropriate stance, so long as one ignores things like rural electrification, the TVA, and the nifty innovations in data communication spurred by ARPANET...yes, government involvement in such matters should only be viewed in the realm of its screwups, and not its lasting successes. ::)
 
Nate Wesley said:
Appropriate stance, so long as one ignores things like rural electrification, the TVA, and the nifty innovations in data communication spurred by ARPANET...yes, government involvement in such matters should only be viewed in the realm of its screwups, and not its lasting successes. ::)
Click to expand...

The thing about those examples is they all came with government bureaucracies to run them. In fact, many of those bureaucracies still exist today. By contrast, this wifi system, as described in this article, would have no bureaucracy to run it. My home wifi system needs a reboot every now and then. Who would do the reboot when the system needed one?
 
TheBigA said:
The thing about those examples is they all came with government bureaucracies to run them. In fact, many of those bureaucracies still exist today. By contrast, this wifi system, as described in this article, would have no bureaucracy to run it. My home wifi system needs a reboot every now and then. Who would do the reboot when the system needed one?
Click to expand...

Whoever's paying to build it.

Seriously, if someone out there in the private sector wants to launch profitable services/products that depend on free wifi, they know those services/products will not continue to be profitable if they don't *maintain* that free wifi. You don't get to be a Microsoft or Google without factoring in the operating expenses.

I suppose the big question is, what happens if, someday, whoever's paying for this decides it's no longer adding to their bottom line.
 
I'm going to try this for the third time & hope the site doesn't eat my reply... keeps telling me it won't post it because it's already done so but if I look at the thread it isn't there...

_________________________________________________

I did read the article. There's nothing in there that says the government would build that network.

The only place the word "free" applies in that article, is to access by end-users.
 
w9wi said:
I did read the article. There's nothing in there that says the government would build that network.
Click to expand...

What does the first sentence in the article say?

You'll also read further that the FCC is willing to forego billions in spectrum fees to pay for it.

And it says "no one actively managing them."
 
TheBigA said:
What does the first sentence in the article say?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I stand by my statement -- that does NOT say, nor necessarily imply, that the government intends to pay for these networks.
 
w9wi said:
I stand by my statement -- that does NOT say, nor necessarily imply, that the government intends to pay for these networks.
Click to expand...

When the government creates something, that implies that the government will pay for it.

Here's what I know: There have been discussions in Congress about charging OTA broadcasters a spectrum fee that would pay for it. No one to the best of my knowledge has suggested that the government would be partnering with other for-profit companies to build it. And no one, to the best of my knowledge, has volunteered. From what I understand, if the government is going to create it, it will take an act of Congress. Good luck on that.
 
This is a pipe dream: Microsoft and Google are going head to head with the telecom cartels: aka Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. They will never allow for some subsidized giveaway of broadband when they are perfectly content selling overpriced "bundles" with their data caps (so you bad bad Netflix and Roku users...dontcha know your SUPPOSED to be paying the cartels for their 7.99 PPV's to watch your favorite flix? Or pay the extras for all the HBO shows you want to watch?)

Do people seriously think the cartels aren't going to pound their fists at any such whims? I mean, after all, who wants that "gubment cheese" free WiFi when we are all perfectly happy with our metered broadband from the cartels!
 
I found this Ars Technica article and immediately thought to revisit this very thread. Granted, its not talking about a Wi-Fi operation, but that hardly matters with the overall tactics at hand. When the corps and telcos can fight with both lobbying and temporary discounting to blatantly put a community service out of business, who's playing 'unfair' again?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...et-prices-to-compete-with-city-owned-network/

KeithE4 said:
3. Municipal WiFi has been tried and failed in most cases. If not through legal challenges (mainly from cable companies who claimed unfair competition), then because it just wasn't economical to build.
Click to expand...

About the 'economical to build' part: There was some interesting stuff found on the MuniNetworks.org site linked in the article. It's easiest to create doom and gloom economic arguments over short term-losses, not so much when the services in question gain maturity. http://www.muninetworks.org/content/successes-and-failures

Pay close attention to the 'Network Economics' part, and remember that these are [mostly] cable-d broadband services we're talking about. Imagine the 'take rate' for a robust municipal wireless operation.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom