More on the FCC's Rejection of Free Wireless Broadband

September 2, 2010 -

The FCC's decision actually goes quite a bit further than simply terminating a free broadband plan. The decision comes from a proposed rulemaking plan that would have opened up the AWS-3 spectrum of radio waves for broadband internet access, at a cost of an estimated $2 billion.

This open spectrum would have primarily gone to a tech startup, M2Z Networks, and at one point was under consideration for "filtering" of "family friendly content": anything that would be "unsuitable for a five-year old" would have been filtered out

Ignoring the obvious First Amendment issues involved in such a plan, the concept simply doesn't jibe with the FCC's purported stance on Net Neutrality, among other things. In fact it seems to go directly against the requirements the FCC themselves had originally proposed:

  • A requirement that the AWS-3 licensee provide free broadband service to at least 95% of the U.S. population in order to address the digital divide;

  • A requirement that the AWS-3 licensee adhere to Net Neutrality principles of open access (end-user access to all lawful content) and open platforms (end-users to have the choice of devices);

  • An enforceable requirement on the AWS-3 licensee to build-out a national broadband network covering 50% of the population in 4 years and 95% in 10 years.

Perhaps it was too ambitious of a goal; perhaps the internal politicking got to be too much; perhaps the plan was simply flawed from the beginning.  But the broader issue is something much more than the FCC simply saying "No" to free broadband.


Dan Rosenthal is lawyer and analyst for the video games industry


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenI imagine they hope the clips they do host (some of which are rather long) are enough to entice viewers to watch the show on whatever channel it airs on.11/25/2014 - 5:54pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's odd that these videos are missing from the official Last Week Tonight page.11/25/2014 - 5:51pm
Andrew EisenRelevant or not, the guy's pretty darn entertaining.11/25/2014 - 4:58pm
WonderkarpJohn Oliver : Corporations On Twitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_7xur1iRc I feel like this is relevent11/25/2014 - 4:53pm
WonderkarpBurt Macklin, Anthropologist. I look forward to Jurassic Parks and Recreation.11/25/2014 - 4:36pm
Andrew EisenYep.11/25/2014 - 4:16pm
E. Zachary KnightDid Jaws 3 take place in a theme park?11/25/2014 - 4:14pm
Andrew EisenHey, they're remaking Jaws 3. Sweet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN411/25/2014 - 3:22pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/11/25/sony-to-refund-vita-customers-in-ftc-settlement-over-false-ads/ Sony is offering a refund to Vita owners who fell for their false advertising during the Vita launch.11/25/2014 - 2:49pm
Matthew Wilsondoes not shock me. people have been representing this as right vs left, but in truth its more like left vs even more left. better put is social libertarianism vs liberal moralism.11/25/2014 - 2:36pm
WonderkarpOfficial Occupy WallStreet Twitter Supports GamerGate https://twitter.com/OccupyWallSt/status/536928387869474818 heh11/25/2014 - 2:11pm
Matthew WilsonI saw that given that the gc adapters have been sold out everywhere, I thought it was higher.11/25/2014 - 11:49am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/11/25/smash-bros-sells-over-490k-on-wii-u-in-three-days/ Some good Nintendo news for a change.11/25/2014 - 11:48am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.865821-Irrational-Games-Rises-From-The-Dead-is-Hiring-Again11/25/2014 - 10:20am
Neeneko@james - yeah, the bar is low, but it still requires a DA that wants you to indict. This grand jury was so oddly handled I would not be surprised if the feds get involved.11/25/2014 - 10:19am
WonderkarpETSY find of the Day. http://tinyurl.com/pa7ymqb I want that on my wall.11/25/2014 - 9:31am
Michael ChandraThe Grand Jury isn't supposed to go "but there is reasonable doubt of their guilt, so no trial", right? I thought the whole idea was "there is reasonable doubt of their innocence, so let a full trial+jury decide."11/25/2014 - 8:41am
Michael ChandraExcept for when cops are involved. Which I never understood. In cases where police officers shot unarmed fleeing people in the back, how can you not assume there is a reasonable chance it was out of line?11/25/2014 - 8:40am
james_fudgeThe old joke is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich - that's how little evidence it requires. The bar is LOW.11/25/2014 - 3:19am
Wonderkarpstill catch 2211/24/2014 - 10:22pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician