FCC Clears Free Wireless Web

[Mr. Olympia]

Here is another FCC head scratcher. Why is the FCC going to be able to tell business how much they can or can't charge

FCC Clears Free Wireless Web - WSJ.com

A proposal to create a free, national wireless Internet service got a boost as Federal Communications Commission engineers concluded that concerns are overblown about such service interfering with other carriers.

The report clears the way for the FCC to move forward with a plan to auction off airwaves to a bidder who agrees to offer free, national wireless Internet service. The FCC is expected to finalize rules this year and could begin auctioning off airwaves in early-to-mid 2009.

The report released Friday was bad news for T-Mobile USA, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG, which uses airwaves that abut the chunk of spectrum that's set to be auctioned off. T-Mobile USA bought its spectrum for about $4 billion a few years ago.

T-Mobile has fought FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to encourage development of free Web access by raising concerns that the service would disrupt the company's 3G wireless network, for which it charges customers. But FCC engineers said recent tests in Seattle showed the airwaves could be used for a wireless broadband service "without a significant risk of harmful interference."

"This report confirms that we're able to move forward with broadband services as proposed by Chairman Martin without causing harmful interference to license users of adjacent spectrum," said an FCC spokesman.

A T-Mobile spokeswoman was not available for comment.
Wireless companies and some lawmakers have raised concerns about the plan, because the proposed auction rules appear to favor M2Z Networks Inc., a Kleiner Perkins-backed start-up that originally floated the free-Internet plan two years ago.

M2Z originally asked the FCC to give it a national 25 megahertz block of airwaves to build a national wireless Internet network. The start-up said it could pay for the build-out via advertising and a subscription-based plan for consumers willing to pay more for faster service.

The idea of handing out airwaves potentially worth billions didn't go over very well at the agency. But in May, Mr. Martin proposed auctioning off the airwaves to a company willing to set aside some of its airwaves for free use.

The network would have to reach 50% of the U.S. population in four years and 95% within a decade.
Write to Amy Schatz at [email protected]

[Neon_Chaos]

Free = good.

Yes, I'm a cheapskate.

[Mr. Olympia]

But in May, Mr. Martin proposed auctioning off the airwaves to a company willing to set aside some of its airwaves for free use.

Some of its airwaves?? What the hell does that mean? Does anyone know if ZERO is a percent?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Olympia

Some of its airwaves?? What the hell does that mean? Does anyone know if ZERO is a percent?

1) It's not that they're telling anybody how much they can charge. It's that they're saying "You can buy a license to this spectrum, but a particular service needs to be made available pursuant to your use of that license."

Kinda like how the FCC regulates broadcast TV - a certain percentage of programming has to be devoted to the public interest (which is why you see news four times a day and the like).

My guess is that the same principle guides "some" here. Not that there's a specific percentage of "airwaves" that have to be made available, but rather a minimum threshold for the amount of traffic devoted to the "public interest" as opposed to private interest via those airwaves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Kinda like how the FCC regulates broadcast TV - a certain percentage of programming has to be devoted to the public interest (which is why you see news four times a day and the like).

Actually any mention of a percentage requirement went away years ago (unless it was instituted during the April localism hearings & I missed it). Now it's basically making sure they do items pursuant to whatever public interest plan is submitted in their public file and meeting their own quota.

Of course someone could be bitten at license renewal time but that's an incredibly faint possibility & ever broadcaster knows it.

As this recent Broadcastlawblog article put it
Of course, public interest advocates will argue that the forms will allow the Commission to assess the station's operation in the public interest, and will allow the public to complain about failures of stations to serve local needs. But, as in a recent license renewal case we wrote about here, the Commission rejected a Petition to Deny against a station based on its alleged failure to do much local public affairs programming as, without specific quantitative program requirements, the Commission cannot punish a station for not doing specific amounts of particular programming. If the Commission adheres to this precedent, it will not be able to fine stations for the information that they put on the Form 355, but only for not filing it or not completing it accurately.

From TVnewsday.com, a more recent article from early October makes it appear that nothing has been finalized in that regard. An interesting read as it details one of Martin's latest schemes: broadcasters could fulfill a portion (some? all? nobody seems to know) of their localism requirement by funding "investigative research by journalism students" at selected universities. The article talks about the various pitfalls of this loosely defined plan which even drew criticism even from non-profits that already do a sort of contract-reporting that's being considered. The whole thing, most of all trying to implement it before year's end when no one has seen any details as of this month, is downright laughable ... which makes it worth a read on a slow news day if you enjoy train wrecks.

[Lathum]

wouldnt things like illegeal downloading and such go up alot if they created a free network?