Politician's Spectrum Plan Sounds Mighty Familiar

from the m2z-in-the-house... dept

You may recall the well-hyped venture-backed startup named M2Z that wanted the FCC to hand over a segment of unused spectrum. Part of the plan was to offer a free ad-supported wireless service that would cover 95% of the country, that would be slow and "filtered" so that it was "family-friendly." It would also offer a higher-level paid tier, as well as priority services for public safety uses. The kicker, though, was that M2Z hoped the FCC would hand over the segment of spectrum for free in exchange for a piece of the profits down the road. The FCC turned down the request, but apparently that's not the last we've seen of it.

Congressional Representative Anna Eshoo has introduced a bill that would reserve the same slice of spectrum for a wireless service that would cover 95% of the country, that would have a free tier that was slower and filtered, as well as a higher-level premium tier, and which would offer priority services for public safety uses. The difference, though, is that it looks like this bill wouldn't involve just handing spectrum over, but would include an auction component towards how that spectrum is used. While it does seem like M2Z is well meaning in its plans, it's still hard to see why setting up all these rules makes sense. It still seems like it would make much more sense to create a much more open market system, to allow the spectrum to be put into the best use possible, rather than setting so many rules for each slice of spectrum.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, politics, spectrum
Companies: m2z

Cablevision Caught Blatantly Lying To Customers About Digital TV Switch

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-the-fcc dept

As you probably have heard, in early 2009, over-the-air TV stations will no longer be broadcasting analog signals to those who receive television over-the-air (with an antenna). This is part of a necessary effort to reclaim valuable wireless spectrum that the broadcasters have held (for free) for many years, and put it to much better use. This change only impacts those who watch TV over-the-air. That means it has no impact whatsoever on anyone who receives their television via cable or satellite TV (representing the majority of TV viewers out there). Yet, this apparently didn't stop at least one cable company from claiming otherwise.

Consumerist has caught Cablevision telling customers that they need to upgrade to a digital cable box by order of the FCC. This is simply untrue. Cablevision is upgrading many of its channels to digital format from analog, and those channels will no longer be available to customers who don't have a digital cable box. But, that's entirely a business decision made by Cablevision, and has absolutely nothing to do with the the FCC-mandated switch for over-the-air broadcasts. It's just that Cablevision timed this deal to coincide with all the stories about the over-the-air switch, and is using that to make people think that it's the FCC's fault. Cablevision responded to Consumerist admitting that the change has nothing to do with the FCC's mandated change -- but refused to explain why every customer support person Consumerist spoke to gave the FCC as the reason, even after they specifically went to check their training notes. It's a rather sneaky (and likely illegal) move to claim that people need to upgrade due to the FCC when the FCC has nothing to do with it.

Filed Under: analog tv, cable, digital tv, fcc, spectrum
Companies: cablevision, fcc

Turning Off Internet In The Classroom Won't Make Lectures Any More Interesting

from the competing-for-attention dept

Just about two years ago, we wrote about some law professors who were threatening to ban computers in their classrooms because students just weren't paying attention. While some apparently did so, perhaps it wasn't enough, because as Slashdot points out, the University of Chicago's law school has now decided to pull the plug on classroom internet connections entirely, as a dean was upset at how many students were surfing the web during class. However, as we noted two years ago, this seems to say a lot more about the lecture quality than the internet access in the classroom. Especially when it comes to a graduate school-level class, where students are supposedly actually interested in the subject, if the professor can't keep the attention of the class, that should be a problem for the professor to deal with, rather than by cutting off internet access. Either way, with 3G wireless access (and eventually 4G) schools simply won't have control over internet access anyway. So, if these schools are really concerned about it, rather than cutting off the connection they do have control over, perhaps they should focus on making the lecture experience more worthwhile.

Filed Under: classrooms, internet access, law school, professors, teaching, university of chicago