RSSCompany Says FCC Blocking Free Broadband
By Ed Oswald | Published August 15, 2007, 5:06 PM
A company that is aiming to bring free broadband to the entire US is being blocked by the Federal Communications Commission, its CEO claimed Wednesday.
M2Z Networks now plans to take the FCC to court over the rejection, apparently claiming the agency has not given the idea a fair study to determine its viability. M2Z's plans call for vacant radio spectrum to be used to provide high-speed Internet service to 95 percent of Americans within 10 years.
The company will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to order the FCC to make a "public interest determination" of M2Z's proposal, which has been with the agency for over a year. The company claims that regulations required the FCC to respond by May 5.
"We strongly believe that the FCC should fully and fairly review the detailed record associated with M2Z's license application and its forbearance petition and make a decision consistent with the law Congress enacted," M2Z regulatory chief Uzoma Onyeije.
The law to which Onyeije refers is Section 7 of the Communications Act. This states that the FCC must, within one year of receiving a petition or application regarding it, determine whether a new technology or service is in the public's interest.
Comments on the petition have largely been in favor of M2Z's plans, although it has been rumored that the FCC was in the process of preparing to deny the company's petition. The agency could have solid reasoning in its denial.
Regulations currently require the FCC to sell any spectrum at auction, whereas the M2Z petition essentially asks the agency to hand it over at no cost. In exchange, five percent of revenues would be handed over to the US Treasury.
Also opposed to the plan are traditional telecommunications companies, who likely see the M2Z network as a serious threat to their hold on high-speed Internet services.
While its basis would be free service, a premium option would also be made available which would cost about $20-30 per month. M2Z says this would generally be faster than current cable or DSL offerings.
We should break up FCC so that they dont have a Monopoly which stifles innovation and raises prices.
Score: 0
|There's nothing wrong with more competition, but this ONE company wants control of a range of frequencies for their free internet. Why should one company control any range of public airwaves nationwide? There's no competition there.
Score: 0
|Why am I not shocked that FCC does not want more competition in the marketplace. Big ISP's pay lots of $$$ to the cheif's in gifts to prevent competition.
Score: 0
|once again the us gov and its agencies side with the big corporations
Score: 0
|So, let M2Z take off with their idea and then when it flies, they'll be eaten in whole by ATT or Verizon. If they flop, well, they'll join the hundreds of other failures.
Score: 0
|It would prob be something like a chump 64k or 128k for free and a 1-2 meg for fee service. That keeps it in the same price structure, plus it would reach people who are too far out to get anything other than really expensive satelite or dialup. the really fat pipes that cable, FIOS, and higher level DSL offer would still be there as choises.
Im just dissapointed that internet in the US costs an arm and a leg where europe you can get services like 24/1 mbit connection for roughly 45 bucks a month (compared to the 6mbit you get from comcast for same price)
Score: 0
|i'm getting 15/1 for $50.
Score: 0
|Basically, this is just another money grab situation by the FCC. The way I see it, they see controlling the electromagnetic spectrum as their cash cow, and someone providing a free service over that in lieu of other methods may endanger their income from other licensees.
How can providing free internet access NOT be in the public's interest, especially those with low income?? The internet is a vast storehouse of knowledge and online services, only good things can come of access to information: online education, services, communication, and most of all, free discussion of thoughts and ideas, the very foundation of our society.
Or is the interests of the big telecoms(read: shareholders) that have been continually and egregiously robbing the public with high fees and crappy service while refusing to update their antiquated systems to provide fast access that is equivalent with the rest of the world more important?
Score: 0
|SO whats next, should we get Free electricity? free telephones? free cable/satellite?
Internet is a utility like anything else, why does everone insist it should be given to them.
I would of course love for brodaband to be cheaper of course, but i see no reason that it should be free,. Most people have no idea how much providing the internet costs, keeping the equipment powered, repaird, tech support, that all costs money, if the broadband is free, where is that money coming from? in this "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie" world, people don't seem to take that into account, how many people would a service like this put out of work? think about how many thousands of people are employed by the telecom industry. THINK people.
Score: 0
|Actually, no. The internet is not a utility. It's a convenience. Why is it such a terrible thing that a company wants to provide it for free? That is that company's choice. Besides, all it would do is spur other companies to offer more. Such as higher speeds, possibly lower rates. Even if free internet did happen, there will still be some (including me) that would prefer paying for the reliability and security (what little there is on the net) of their own connection. Some companies might leave the market, others will come into the market. Don't worry so much.
Score: 0
|We need to ensure that EVERYONE in this country has access to 'affordable & very fast' broadband internet... if we want to stay competitive technologically/medically/economically as a nation.... & the government has to take a lead role in this. IF it hadn't re other basic utilities, we'd still have regions with none or affordable electricity, phone, running water....it's mainly what separates us from downtrodden countries.
Score: 0
|Not so much that it would be free, im nearly positive that it would be like a NetZero type thing from the dial up days... Also what ever happened to the 200 Billion the US Gov paid to the ISP's to get broadband cheaply to the masses ?
My guess is they want the revenue to be ad driven. Wich like TV over the air is free but to get cable you must pay and that seems to work fine :)
I think even slow net access would be a boon to the economy if it was free.
Score: 0
|I don't know enough about the proposed technology but if the big telcos are against it it is probably a good idea.
Regardless, I feel the FCC must play by the rules.
Score: 0
|I agree with the FCC here.
Score: 0
|This is exactly what we need in the US.
IF the gov't hadn't stepped in decades ago, not everyone would have telephones/electricity/running water... can you imagine if you had left that up to whatever happens-- as w/ broadband & cellular today?
Score: 0
|Yeah. It seems that leaving everything up to for profit isn't really working out in the USA now. i.e. health care.
Score: 0
|Actually health care in most first world countries is provided for free or at a very low cost by the government, which you might think is great until you get sick and find out that it takes like 5 years of waiting to get into an emergency room. Competition in health care = improvements in health care.
Now I never said the US's health care system wasn't flawed just simply that socialistic health care systems are not as great as they are flaunted to be.
Score: 0
|While I support the idea of free broadband, taking advantage of free hot-spots all the time; if it ever became large-scale corporately sponsored, it could really harm the telecom companies.
Score: 0
|This is a bad thing how? :-D
Score: 0
|omg.. could comcast, verizon and time warner be crying foul on this one.
Score: 0
|Hmm.
Score: 0
|Ummm... yeah...
Score: 0
|