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

[therabiddeer]

Both sides have a point, but I cant side with the cellular industry that charges essentially $40/hr or more for bandwidth (assumption: you use bandwidth for an hour at a speed of 1.3MB/s, like watching a movie or TV show in HD).

 

[therabiddeer]

[citation][nom]quilciri[/nom]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.[/citation]
Hey now, AT&T is investing a lot in their infrastructure... just not in the way that helps consumers. They are spending billions on buying out other companies for their area coverage!

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]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.[/citation]
That is what people said that it is too expensive to build the Interstate Highway system back in the 50s. It took the government to finish 40 years later, and it now it needs repair. For others to claim the status quo of paying ISP individually, 90 years ago most highway roads were tolled and if we maintained as it was, can you imagine how limited our lives and economy be? Then again, we will be mostly using public transportation and be in three generation families with sister/brother in law in the same house every day.

 

[mcd023]

so, how will having a city on a few frequencies be usable? wont it be overloaded?

 

[upgrade_1977]

I'm all for free public wi-fi. Nothing wrong with that, and I think it would help boost the economy because people who couldn't afford it now has access to the internet, and that is good for the nation as a whole. Also, the many advantages of nation wide wi-fi far outweigh any arguements any of these companies have. Cost? Obviously it's gonna come out of our tax's. Upgrades? It would be beneficial for the government to keep the system upgraded for efficiency purposes. Older equipment normally uses more power and cost's more to keep up to maintenance, so it wouldn't really make sense for them to not upgrade it, also obviously the government is gonna use it to. Think about this, it would also be a gps and internet backup, so if our satellites get knocked out somehow, we still can navigate and access the internet

. If ya really think about it, all these companies really don't have to worry about the whole money issue, I mean all they have to do is lay down some fiber optic, I don't think wireless will be able to compete with that, so they can charge a premium for that.

 

[bombebomb]

[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 would almost bet money it's gonna cost us less per year than it does for a cell phone data plan.

Not saying I support it, but looking at it the way you described is flawed.

 

[ikefu]

I'm all for it but I have one huge trepidation. The government is terrible about maintaining anything, just look at our ailing Interstate system and inefficient budget for improving existing civil utilities. Free wifi everyone would rock, but I'm guessing the government run system would crash routinely and offer speeds less than current 3G. I'd rather the government invest the money in spurring Google Fiber like initiatives across the country. Its a shame most home wired ISP connections are slower than LTE speeds.

 

[susyque747]

The FCC is another part of the FED and I don't trust anything they do.

 

[susyque747]

[citation][nom]dozerman[/nom]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.[/citation]
I bet you believe in Socialism/Communism too and voted for king Obama too.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

When did it become the government's job to provide people's frivolous needs, when it can't even provide food, water, and shelter for everyone? For all we know, their main interests could be censorship and snooping!

 

[therabiddeer]

[citation][nom]bigpinkdragon286[/nom]When did it become the government's job to provide people's frivolous needs, when it can't even provide food, water, and shelter for everyone? For all we know, their main interests could be censorship and snooping![/citation]
While they probably do have other interests, internet is almost mandatory in these days. Lots of jobs only hire using online applications. This results in unemployment offices having huge wait lines to use their computers for internet.

 

[f-14]

start counting the days until AT&T sprint and verizon buy out tv networks and tv stations in major metro areas just to screw this super wifi. seems to me this super wifi is merely a threat to bring internet costs down in price.

this super wifi would be overloaded pretty fast for all the things that would spring up all over needing to use it and doesn't sound very practical to me.

also the government can't even manage the sanitation let alone anything else, hurricane katrina is great evidence of governments mismanagement!

 

[CaedenV]

what on earth could be the problem? You mean to say that the government that brings substandard schools, substandard healthcare, substandard housing programs, and robs from the public retirement system would somehow bring us substandard internet?
/sarcasm

On the one hand, the internet companies need to be taught a lesson. I have paid $45/mo for the last 5 years, and you know what? my internet is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. Everything else has gotten better/faster/(stronger), but my internet dollar gets me the same service as it always has. Some of that money needs to go into infrastructure to make service better otherwise we will demand something better. Having some form of 'free' baseline internet available would be a great motivator to get internet companies into gear at creating a better internet experience for the masses; Or at least make the current experience cheap enough where people would want it.

On the other hand; As much as I do not trust TWC or Cincy Bell to get me better service, I trust the government less. If the Gov't has an IPv6 network, then the Gov't has full rights to watch everything you do on that network. While I am moderately OK with it the way things are now, that is not to say that there will not be a worse government (or at least an out of control branch of the government) that would not abuse that power in the future. I would just as soon not give it to them, and keep my internet through companies that I have some form of legal recourse against. It is the same reason I am against most gov't programs. It is not that it is a bad idea, it may (like in this case) be a good idea. But every service we pass on under government control is just one more way for us to watch and control us. It is not so bad when you have a Bush or Obamma in office, but it could be quite terrible if we were to get someone who is bent out of shape against a particular ethnicity/religion/belief system. Leave such things in the hand of small local governments who are only capable of small atrocities.

 

[Guest]

This can be used as an active radar to track every movement within coverage. They can also do this with cell service, but not as well... Having to tap every carriers towers is more difficult then if you own the whole system.. All I see is more privacy loss..

 

[dark_knight33]

[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]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[/citation]

This.

Not to mention that carrier infrastructure subsidies could be cut to help fund this. There is also the secondary effect of gov't spending (to overpriced gov't contractors) that stimulates the economy, and much of that spending is then recouped through taxes on the wages of those contractors. The only parties that stand to "lose" something from this are VZW & AT&T, because they want to ride the bottom of service as long as possible, while increasing prices. I don't know about anyone else, but my cell phone bill has only been going *up* since I got my first cell in like 2003. VZW has finally hit a ceiling in which people are unwilling to pay more for plans, so they keep the price the same and cut the service back. They are gearing up for VoLTE, and when that launches, people are going to cry for their data plans...and VZW will rake in the $$$ by the truckload.

People seem to be so afraid of "gov't controlled" *gasp*... Like you don't already put all your personal information up on facebook already. As if you have anything worth knowing anyway... The one solid thing a public program does is set the minimum bar that private service will have to beat. It keeps them in line, makes them compete with something besides a 3 decade duopoly. VZW & AT&T aren't raking in record profits because the service is just *that good*, they are making bank because people don't have many choices in carriers. This, would at least provide an alternative and either force pricing down, or service quality up. (if we are lucky, both)

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]I have paid $45/mo for the last 5 years, and you know what? my internet is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. Everything else has gotten better/faster/(stronger), but my internet dollar gets me the same service as it always has
...
Leave such things in the hand of small local governments who are only capable of small atrocities.[/citation]On the other hand, given inflation, shouldn't you be paying $50? They might not have kept up, but neither has your bill. Otherwise I would tend to agree... although, after a certain point wired upgrades get pretty cost-prohibitive. That's why FiOS isn't cheap, although I still love it since the formerly-local-monopoly cable (Comcast) was terribly unreliable and DSL is a non-starter in this area (distance).

Anyway, I agree that if you're going to do something with this bandwidth other than sell it, you'd be better off giving it to the states. States have to manage their money, unlike the feds, so we would directly see the cost. I'd make it a low-cost internet option, rather than free. Same effect of putting pressure on wireless providers, without burdening those who don't want/need the government internet, and are happy with what they have.[citation][nom]dark_knight33[/nom]There is also the secondary effect of gov't spending (to overpriced gov't contractors) that stimulates the economy, and much of that spending is then recouped through taxes on the wages of those contractors
...
People seem to be so afraid of "gov't controlled" *gasp*... Like you don't already put all your personal information up on facebook already. As if you have anything worth knowing anyway...[/citation]So wasteful spending on price gouging contractors that line their personal pockets... stimulates the economy? Rwear, rokay raggy. We recoup SOME of the money in taxes? Here's an idea... don't spend the money (which we don't have) in the first damn place! That's like saying government jobs grow tax revenue... it's true, but it ignores the fact that they cost much much more than you get back in revenue!

As for privacy, you're already too far brainwashed if you're willing to intentionally give up your rights. Nothing anyone says will change your mind, because you're the ideal product of public education - foolish, shortsighted, and dependent on the government.
[citation][nom]cbfelterbush[/nom]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[/citation]That's a hell of an assumption given our history, I wouldn't bet any money on it.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]what on earth could be the problem? You mean to say that the government that brings substandard schools, substandard healthcare, substandard housing programs, and robs from the public retirement system would somehow bring us substandard internet?/sarcasmOn the one hand, the internet companies need to be taught a lesson. I have paid $45/mo for the last 5 years, and you know what? my internet is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. Everything else has gotten better/faster/(stronger), but my internet dollar gets me the same service as it always has. Some of that money needs to go into infrastructure to make service better otherwise we will demand something better. Having some form of 'free' baseline internet available would be a great motivator to get internet companies into gear at creating a better internet experience for the masses; Or at least make the current experience cheap enough where people would want it.On the other hand; As much as I do not trust TWC or Cincy Bell to get me better service, I trust the government less. If the Gov't has an IPv6 network, then the Gov't has full rights to watch everything you do on that network. While I am moderately OK with it the way things are now, that is not to say that there will not be a worse government (or at least an out of control branch of the government) that would not abuse that power in the future. I would just as soon not give it to them, and keep my internet through companies that I have some form of legal recourse against. It is the same reason I am against most gov't programs. It is not that it is a bad idea, it may (like in this case) be a good idea. But every service we pass on under government control is just one more way for us to watch and control us. It is not so bad when you have a Bush or Obamma in office, but it could be quite terrible if we were to get someone who is bent out of shape against a particular ethnicity/religion/belief system. Leave such things in the hand of small local governments who are only capable of small atrocities.[/citation]

That's nothing. I know a guy that spends $115 a month for 768Kb of bandwidth here in the US.

$45 a month is pretty good compared to the fleecing some people seem to get here.

 

[alidan]

[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]

yea, instead give it all to at&t who tried to blackmail the govenment into letting them buy t mobile.

at this point, i trust the governement more than anyone else.

they dont have the only internet, but they would have an internet for everyone, i mean think of it like this, a public library has internet, we pay for that, usualy at a very high cost. why not just extend it and use unused airwaves.

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]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.[/citation]

adding strain... lets cut the retardedly large defense budget, and actually tax the rich and corporations....

this is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

at least this drop helps people, and not the rich few.

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]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?[/citation]

i see this as a fire under the butts of people who are payed for the internet.

see, i have a 75mbit down 5 mbit up

if this free wifi came at lets say 10 down and 5 up, what are the odds i would stay at 75down and 5 up...

this would force them to either make the service better, or lose someone to a free alternative.
even if people left en mass, they couldnt charge more, because that would force more people to leave,

it really is a fire that says, get better or die.

[citation][nom]gilamonsterz[/nom]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.[/citation]

im interested in how much it would cost. i mean how much do some of us pay for internet, 10-20$ per gb up, and how good is the service?

imagine a free wifi... its really a box that plugs into a backbone, and bounces data from place to place, as fast as it can possibly go... sure the ping time may suck, but damn could it go fast.

setting it up nation wide... i really wonder how much it would cost.

[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]

unless the govenment comes out with 100 up and down for everyone for free, you wont see an en mass rush to the free network. but what you would see, especially if it announced and finalised is companies stepping up their game significantly, probably pulling some companies like at&t into the red whole they do upgrades and are unable to charge more.

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]what on earth could be the problem? You mean to say that the government that brings substandard schools, substandard healthcare, substandard housing programs, and robs from the public retirement system would somehow bring us substandard internet?/sarcasmOn the one hand, the internet companies need to be taught a lesson. I have paid $45/mo for the last 5 years, and you know what? my internet is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. Everything else has gotten better/faster/(stronger), but my internet dollar gets me the same service as it always has. Some of that money needs to go into infrastructure to make service better otherwise we will demand something better. Having some form of 'free' baseline internet available would be a great motivator to get internet companies into gear at creating a better internet experience for the masses; Or at least make the current experience cheap enough where people would want it.On the other hand; As much as I do not trust TWC or Cincy Bell to get me better service, I trust the government less. If the Gov't has an IPv6 network, then the Gov't has full rights to watch everything you do on that network. While I am moderately OK with it the way things are now, that is not to say that there will not be a worse government (or at least an out of control branch of the government) that would not abuse that power in the future. I would just as soon not give it to them, and keep my internet through companies that I have some form of legal recourse against. It is the same reason I am against most gov't programs. It is not that it is a bad idea, it may (like in this case) be a good idea. But every service we pass on under government control is just one more way for us to watch and control us. It is not so bad when you have a Bush or Obamma in office, but it could be quite terrible if we were to get someone who is bent out of shape against a particular ethnicity/religion/belief system. Leave such things in the hand of small local governments who are only capable of small atrocities.[/citation]

actually public schools are very good aparently, recent studies show it. surprised me too.
we just got some form of health care reform, and its something so many people are against it cant be strong

cant argue the rest though.

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]On the other hand, given inflation, shouldn't you be paying $50? They might not have kept up, but neither has your bill. Otherwise I would tend to agree... although, after a certain point wired upgrades get pretty cost-prohibitive. That's why FiOS isn't cheap, although I still love it since the formerly-local-monopoly cable (Comcast) was terribly unreliable and DSL is a non-starter in this area (distance).Anyway, I agree that if you're going to do something with this bandwidth other than sell it, you'd be better off giving it to the states. States have to manage their money, unlike the feds, so we would directly see the cost. I'd make it a low-cost internet option, rather than free. Same effect of putting pressure on wireless providers, without burdening those who don't want/need the government internet, and are happy with what they have.So wasteful spending on price gouging contractors that line their personal pockets... stimulates the economy? Rwear, rokay raggy. We recoup SOME of the money in taxes? Here's an idea... don't spend the money (which we don't have) in the first damn place! That's like saying government jobs grow tax revenue... it's true, but it ignores the fact that they cost much much more than you get back in revenue!As for privacy, you're already too far brainwashed if you're willing to intentionally give up your rights. Nothing anyone says will change your mind, because you're the ideal product of public education - foolish, shortsighted, and dependent on the government.That's a hell of an assumption given our history, I wouldn't bet any money on it.[/citation]

privacy... the govenment doesn't care, and makes laws making them able to not care. at this point, why the hell bother keeping up the facade of "your intimation is safe and unmonitored"
and just come out and say "yea, we watch you, the (sanction avoidance) you going to do about it?

 

[Guest]

Question. Do you really want to use Government sponsored Wi-Fi? I mean, aren't the snooping on us enough already? Remember, our ISPs' "balls" are the only things that's giving us any kind of privacy at all as far as keeping the Government's prying eyes out of our business. Imagine if they controlled the entire pipe. It would be like full time cloud computing. They'd snoop into every packet you sent and received! That is, if they aren't already!

Besides internet is a privilege, not a right. And I for one hopes it stays that way. Because the moment a privilege becomes a right, that's the moment the government has the ability to take that right away from you!

 

[spentshells]

Republicans are advising they sell the white space to their friends so everyone makes a dollar but the public gets nothing, government is here to serve the people not turn a profit.