FCC: U.S. Doesn't Need Free Wireless Broadband
"The FCC once again is siding with big telcos at the expense of consumers. This time around, it killed a plan that would offer free wireless broadband to 95% of the U.S., making use of a piece of the wireless spectrum that's unused. Are you surprised?"
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I read the ruling on this case. I’m not a lawyer and have some problems reading legalese, but if I understand the ruling, the primary reason for rejecting this application was related to M2Z’s request for forbearance from sections 1.945(b) and (c) of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Communications Rules. Section 1.945(b) provides that “[n]o application that is not subject to competitive bidding under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act will be granted by the Commission prior to the 31st day following the issuance of a Public Notice of the acceptance for filing of such application or of any substantial amendment thereof, unless the application is not subject to Section 309(b) of the Communications Act.” M2Z argued that this forbearance should occur because their entry into the market would increase competition in the market.
M2Z wanted to use this to offer 384kbps download speed for free, and 3Mbp download speeds at a cost from $20-30 per month.
Both M2Z and another company, NetFreeUS, had requested the forbearance. NetfreeUS proposed to provide this service “under a unique plan for nationwide secondary-market licensing that allows entrepreneurs, new entrants and municipalities to participate in providing services on a ‘private commons’ basis.”
Both companies requested the forbearance so that they could begin using this immediately, without the required review process in licensing to ensure that a complete record of how the public interest will be served and without competitive bidding from other companies. Apparently, a large number of competing requests for use of this portion of the spectrum had been received, and M2Z and NetFreeUS wanted to jump in first. As you will note, neither of these companies wishes to offer a completely free service – they are both planning to engage in for-charge usage in addition to (very slow) free usage.
The FCC essentially ruled against these companies not for the ability to use the wireless spectrum, but because of their request that the forbearance allow them to jump in without competitive bidding taking place and without being required to show how the public interest would be served by them (as opposed to all the other competing requests). Methinks this news article has put a slant on the case that may not be entirely fair.
Post a Comment