Startup Still Clamoring For Free Spectrum To Build Out Wireless Broadband
from the now-with-added-free dept
Back in 2006, a startup called M2Z Networks asked the FCC to give it a sizable chunk of valuable spectrum for free, and in exchange, it would set up a nationwide wireless broadband network to offer free (and slow) "family-friendly" service and pay the government 5% of the revenues from a paid premium service also running on the network. We were skeptical of the plan because of its aggressive rollout schedule and the network's slow speed ("512 kbps" -- keep that figure in mind -- for the free tier/3 mbps for the paid tier), but mostly because of the huge expenditure required to build out a wireless network covering 95 percent of the US population -- expenditure which would be very difficult to recover from a free, slow service. The FCC wasn't convinced, either, and rejected M2Z's proposal in 2007, though that wasn't the end of it. A congresswoman introduced a bill tailor-made for M2Z's specs, but it went nowhere. Still, M2Z lives on, and it's now looking for a chunk of stimulus funding to start building its network.It doesn't look like M2Z has updated its plan at all since 2006, doing nothing to address any of the concerns, beyond replacing the need for private investment with a second government handout, on top of its free spectrum. In particular, they don't seem to have upped their targets for the speed of their network. What the company was proposing wasn't exactly fast in 2006, is pretty pokey now, and will be even less attractive by the time its network would get up and running. In addition, it's worth clarifying that the "512 kbps" M2Z talks about is arrived at by adding the 384kbps downstream speed plus the 128 kbps upstream speed they plan to offer. That's a new trick we haven't seen before, even in the world of "up to" broadband speed advertising.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Plenty fast enough for critical services
But for basic services like access to email, instant messaging, job search websites and government services? It should do the trick just fine (and much better than 57.6 kbps dial-up).
If people want access to the "fun" side of the internet, or more powerful educational and communications tools (which are likely to require sufficient bandwidth to handle reasonably high quality video), then that's an optional service they can pay for.
There may be plenty of other problems with M2Z's proposal, but the idea of a universal, publicly available basic level of internet access (even at relatively "slow" data rates) can't be counted as a major flaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plenty fast enough for critical services
and at least they're not making outrageous promises that they clearly can't keep, like a 100 Mb/s both way connection to everyone for free if the FCC grants this, which would make them lose tons of credibility. I don't even know if they can keep the promises they are making without some sort of tax subsidy, assuming they don't waste those tax dollars, but at least the promises they are making sound somewhat reasonable which somewhat gives them a bit of credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plenty fast enough for critical services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference between UP TO and CAPPED speeds
While I agree with Carlo that M2Z's plans sound unrealistic, and they are begging for a double handout, I think Nick is spot on that 384Kbps could do a lot of good.
Also, it's worth noting that a "governed" or "limited to" speed of 384Kbps is different than the normal "up to" speeds we are quoted in the wireless sector. For example, AT&T's HSPA cites "up to 7.2Mbps", but this is a laboratory best case speed, with an uncontested network. As we know, real world speeds are almost always below 1.5Mbps, just ask an iPhone 3GS user. But with a "governed" top speed of 384Kbps on a network than can actually deliver a theoretical 7.2Mbps, you might ACTUALLY GET 384Kbps of downstream data.
Now, if you've ever looked at the throughput the average web server tops out at to the individual user's laptop, it's about 300Kbps. My DOCSIS 3 connection offers me 16Mbps, but I still only load most websites at 300Kbps, because I am sharing the websites upstream servers and capacity with many other users.
So, a true 384Kbs download speed would actually deliver very snappy web browsing and email service, while being a little slow for multiple simultaneous downloads, video, and such.
Seems like that would be damned good IF it could be ubiquitous (unlikely) and free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Portland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Portland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Portland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Portland
Yeah, but what do you expect for free. Free bad service is better than no service at all.
"If the government is going to give up public spectrum and supply the money then why not have the government run it."
I have no problems with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Portland
Our interstates are riddled with potholes. They are terrible compared with the phenomenal, smooth, toll autoroutes of Europe. Yet people seem to swarm to our crappy, free freeways, while in Europe, many choose the free regional roads with all their stoppages and town crossings.
Subway is having a free breakfast on May 11. Go there between 7 and 10 to get a free sandwich and coffee. For realz. I think there will be long lines, the service will be slow, and I would rather go there May 12 and pay for a sandwich with no wait. However, I can assure you that many people will gladly take the inferior service on May 11 because the price is free.
The point about Portland is irrelevant. That shows that if you offer a free bad service, but someone else offers a slightly better free service, then people will choose the better free service. They are still choosing free hotspots with limited service coverage over a paid Verizon EV-DO MyFi modem, which works well anywhere in Portland.
And, BTW, perhaps a 384Kbps service that covers ALL of Portland with limited gaps is actually BETTER than a bunch of WiFi hotspots in specific cafes. Ubiquity and consistency can be at least as important as speed.
And of course, the people that will swarm to these free (inferior) services are those with less money for discretionary spending. You or I may buy the better service (I love my MyFi), but some people choose nothing over the current paid options. Some people don't have a whole lot of hotspot options in their location.
If (and that's a big if) the country truly wants to bring all citizens into the digital age, should we really depend on the nations Baristas to do the heavy lifting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Portland
What are you talking about? Carlo explained that clearly in the article. Why would we re-hash it here? Plus, most comments seem to refer to 384Kbps, which is the correct D/L figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they truly can and will deliver this, which I don't know, I think it's a good idea. Even 512 kbps is great for those who don't have Internet access and will easily enable them to start blogs and comment on blogs and give me a larger perspective of the world and the lives of those who would otherwise not have Internet connection, especially in areas where there is very little Internet. Heck, it beast those dial up modems by a large amount and at one time I used to be stuck with a 14.4 modem many many years ago, back when just about everyone had a dialup modem and a 14.4 connection was considered really fast. 512 Kbps even beats my prehistoric 56K connections that, at the time, I thought were incredibly fast. It's better than nothing. and to Imagine that all the cell phones only use a small faction of the spectrum. a 512 Kbps connection for everyone almost everywhere would easily replace radio, now everyone can stream music online anywhere and start listening to online radio stations that offer only CC licensed music that no one pays the evil RIAA for and listen to online talk radio and whatever online stations they want. Of course the RIAA and radio broadcasters would strongly lobby against something like this, they don't want competition, but who cares. We need to tell our government who's boss, that they work for WE the people, not the corporate lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I'm with the consensus view; it's becoming harder and harder to live without home internet access no matter what income bracket you happen to be in, so the idea is a good one, but if the taxpayer is footing a large chunk of the bill then the government ought to be running the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am in favor of either disbarring the FCC and allowing anyone to use the public spectra how they see fit, with the exception of only one radio and one television station for emergency broadcast use only, or allowing the government to use all public spectra to provide everyone with free Internet service (with the above exceptions for emergency use only) and allowing private companies to build Internet cell phones, Internet radio stations, Internet television stations, hand held devices that access the Internet, Internet car, home, and hand held radio, etc... Public airwaves should be used the public good and not handed over to some private broadcaster resulting in the monopolization of both the spectra and the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How the government could take that land, which previously was owned by some branch of gov't, and SELL it to you so you can use it as you see fit is beyond me.
"Public airwaves should be considered public property."
Um...they are. And we have policy in place to lease out our property to the free market.
You see, the government sells, rents, and leases pubic assets all the time. In the case of spectrum, it is leased, with conditions to provide the public with a service, and paid for dearly at auction.
The proceeds from the auction go to the Treasury to offset your taxes. The public gets paid. It's fair.
You may not like the policy, and you could certainly make a case for different policy, but you can't credibly come off like the current spectrum policy is some major scam where public assets are given away for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other example of adding up/down stream speeds
The units advertised as 200Mbps are really just 100Mbps duplex (and don't perform anywhere close to that threshold anyway).
That said, I love my powerline ethernet for my HTPC/PS3. It's vastly superior to a flaky wireless connection, or running a cable through the middle of the room...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]