Wi-Fi Industry Retaliates Against FCC's Super Wi-Fi Network

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raid3r

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
69
0
18,580
0
Both sides my have a point, but I can say for sure either way we lose. Honestly though, we have let the telcos have their way to long. Gov branches may not be "better", but we can put pressure on them a lot easier.
 

dozerman

Honorable
Nov 14, 2012
14
0
10,560
0
For once, the government is trying to do something that would benifit the common man, and these morons are getting in the way with their greed.
 

koga73

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2008
183
0
18,630
0
The government shouldn't even think about rolling out "free" nation-wide wifi. For one we don't need the government controlling the nations wifi. Second this would cost the taxpayers billions... money that we don't have.
 

LORD_ORION

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2007
330
1
18,930
0
How about you put it to a referendum.

All those in favor of available public frequencies being sold by government to corporations? *tumbleweeds*

All those in favor of an always on wifi infrastructure across the entire nation? (you know, sort of like how we have roads for cars?)

That's what I thought.
 

internetlad

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2011
183
0
18,630
0
not surprising that verizon and AT&T are amongst the first listed as disputing this. They stand to lose a hell of a lot when everybody can use any laptop to make calls via Skype WI-FI from anywhere in the nation.

On the flip side, of course, this is certainly a very expansive project, adding much unwanted strain to an already failing and irresponsible budget.
 

quilciri

Honorable
Mar 16, 2012
64
0
10,610
8
I don't know about Qualcomm, but AT&T & Verizon's agruments don't hold water. Despite record profits (not revenue, profits )each year, both Verizon and AT&T are investing less and less in their infrasructure. The quality of service has gotten worse as more people access the stagnant networks at 3G, wimax ,and LTE speeds. Quality of service does not appear to be their primary concern.
 

LORD_ORION

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2007
330
1
18,930
0
[citation][nom]koga73[/nom]The government shouldn't even think about rolling out "free" nation-wide wifi. For one we don't need the government controlling the nations wifi. Second this would cost the taxpayers billions... money that we don't have.[/citation]

I guess you are also anti-road, emergency services, and military? Or do you disagree that information inter-connectivity is essential for a nation during this time of emerging globalization, and that empowering citizens is not as good as empowering corporations?
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
541
0
18,940
2
I don't think the big companies are screaming bloody murder because they are afraid of losing profits. All of the companies listed would be asked to provide the support and infrastructure and maintenance as well as the capacity for this. In the long run the new model may be "free to use" but the cost would be placed on the taxpayer instead of each cellular phone owner. Nothing is free.

While the upside of having "free" wireless access everywhere could create some amazing new companies and products, there is also the huge downside of who watches the watchmen? What kind of security and over-site would there be to prevent abuse of the massive amounts of personal data a network like this would create?
 

gilamonsterz

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2010
9
0
18,510
0
Yeah, free wifi 'sounds' nice, but it will be government controlled, bandwidth limited, and expensive. Pay higher taxes for crappy internet you wont use but everyone else can, even those not paying taxes? Sounds like all our other inefficient treasurey draining social programs. Versuse liscensing the spectrum, and generating revenue toward our horrendous deficit, strengthening economic confidence, and lowering taxes?

I see ups and downs on both sides, but liscensing makes more sense in the current state of affairs.
 

gilamonsterz

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2010
9
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]I guess you are also anti-road, emergency services, and military? Or do you disagree that information inter-connectivity is essential for a nation during this time of emerging globalization, and that empowering citizens is not as good as empowering corporations?[/citation]

In general, an individual can pay for internet service. An individual cannot pay for a road. Taxes for civil infrastructure are one thing, but this is another debt increasing social program to increase reliance on government and certain political parties. Campaigns will be: Vote for me! Get free internet! Those other guys don't want you to have internet, they're bad!
 

lindethier

Honorable
Apr 15, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
I just look at the cost of rolling this out and wonder if that would be best, considering the insane amount of debt the government is currently in. As others have said, it could lead to some more interesting connectivity between devices, but the cost would still be insane. Nothing is free.
 

g00fysmiley

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
476
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]lindethier[/nom]I just look at the cost of rolling this out and wonder if that would be best, considering the insane amount of debt the government is currently in. As others have said, it could lead to some more interesting connectivity between devices, but the cost would still be insane. Nothing is free.[/citation]

these are some of my concerns as well, but like the public works prodject that brought us hoover damn and the highways we could add to taxes to fund it and it would i think be good fo have a public netwrok liek this so everybody can have some level of access to the internet much liek you can have cable tv or stalite tv but an antenna is still an option not as good service but still an option. i also feel this woudl actually improve service from private companies like at&t / verizon due to having to do somethign they hate doing... actually competing and with a free option it means they damn well better offer a signifigantly better product or lose customers
 
G

Guest

Guest
Balance the budget first....(sorry, let's actually have one first), get out of debt, bring our troops home, institute a flat tax, then lets talk.
 

cbfelterbush

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2011
11
0
18,560
0
To be perfectly frank, I do NOT think it is within the spectrum of government functions to have anything at all to do with WiFi whatever. What the fuck are they wasting tax dollars on when the government can't even keep the power on for the superbowl.

Thorium. If the government wants to spend research dollars here, that's great, assuming they don't just sell the breakthroughs in power production technology to China.

-CB
 

guardianangel42

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2010
169
0
18,630
1
You guys are looking at this all wrong.

If this went through, the Government would be the sole distributor of the internet. If this went through, ATT, Verizon, and all the rest would struggle to stay in business and quite possibly could fail to pay for the bandwidth they already have.

I for one don't want to live in a country where the government controls my access to the internet.
 

tuch92

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2009
51
0
18,580
0
I see the point of both sides but I think basic public WIFi would be good. Something for simple communications. If users are going to need more than that, then they can go with the service providers. It helps even the playing field. The main stipulation I'm worried about is if the goverment would be censoring what comes through.

I think if they do create it, add a 2.5 Mbps cap (or so) per device connected. Just enough for basic use. That way they aren't destroying the providers and they don't have a few people causing the network to crawl.
 

livebriand

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
282
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]guardianangel42[/nom]You guys are looking at this all wrong. If this went through, the Government would be the sole distributor of the internet. If this went through, ATT, Verizon, and all the rest would struggle to stay in business and quite possibly could fail to pay for the bandwidth they already have.I for one don't want to live in a country where the government controls my access to the internet.[/citation]
Hard to say - you can get basic TV for free OTA, but people still subscribe to cable. Unless government-provided internet is faster than what you can subscribe to (doubtful), AT&T, Verizon, etc very well might survive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 20
G Streaming Video & TVs 34
G Streaming Video & TVs 54
G Streaming Video & TVs 56
G Streaming Video & TVs 12
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 99
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 26
G Streaming Video & TVs 51
G Streaming Video & TVs 55
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 122
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 34
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 29
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 63
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 32
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 19
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 25
G Streaming Video & TVs 31

ASK THE COMMUNITY