FCC proposes large public WiFi networks

[Townsend]

Tech, telecom giants take sides as FCC proposes large public WiFi networks

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

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.

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.

[carltonplace]

dreamers

[Townsend]

dreamers

Lobbies too strong?

[swake]

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? 

[Hoss]

Lobbies too strong?

You don't think the ISP/phone carrier lobby will stand for this, do you?

You pipe dreamer!

[Townsend]

You don't think the ISP/phone carrier lobby will stand for this, do you?

I'm hoping

"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

"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.

[Townsend]

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.

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

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.

[swake]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's nice to fantasize sometimes that the government might actually do something to the benefit of the people.  Wouldn't that be nice...??

[Gaspar]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Townsend]

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?

[Hoss]

How do you see this as the government taking over the internet?

Srsly?  Look at the name by the post.   

[Gaspar]

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/