Major Wireless Carriers Oppose FCC Broadband Proposal
Major Wireless Carriers Oppose FCC Broadband Proposal
Posted 07/25/2008 at 6:15am
| by Chris Moody
5
Comments
Print
Major wireless carriers, including AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, and their primary trade association, the CTIA, are opposing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s proposal that would put free wireless broadband in the hands of consumers. This is the filtered public broadband proposal that we covered before. Basically it is an advertising-supported network that would filter out porn and who knows what else.
I disagree with Martin’s proposal on that filtering the service would be wrong, unless adults have a way to shut off the filtering. It just smacks of China somehow. I also disagree that the government should fund such a service directly competing with small businesses that are already trying to offer similar services. I also don’t believe the government has the experience or structure needed to run such a network effectively. They aren't facing any of the realities needing to be confronted in the operation and control of the system.
The wireless companies and the CITA take a different tact. They claim that the FCC's proposed network would create interference in its planned 3G service that would run in adjacent spectrum. "The commission cannot responsibly reach a decision on the proposal … without gathering empirical data concerning the interference risks that have been identified," T-Mobile said in a filing with the FCC.
The CTIA said in letter to the FCC on June 25th, "How can the FCC expect investors and the carriers they fund to show up at future auctions and fully utilize their spectrum if they have no confidence that the FCC is an honest broker? Now the FCC is planning to pull the rug out from under those same licensees by developing new rules that will cause harmful interference to their customers."
There are also some members of Congress that oppose the plan as well. Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Cliff Stearns of Florida said in a June 30th letter to Martin, "placing these conditions would result in the commission choosing winners and losers, as well as denying taxpayers the added revenue the spectrum would likely fetch if auctioned without the conditions”.
The deadline for comments on this plan is today.
Are you interested in a free, but filtered wireless broadband service that is ad supported? Sound off below!
More like this
Kargg
July 25, 2008 at 12:01pm
Sorry for the dual posting. I didn't think my first post went through, so I tried it again. The website seemed to hang. Sorry, folks!!
Kargg
July 25, 2008 at 12:00pm
I'm kind of split 50/50 on it. I like the idea of having free
internet, but having the government do it sounds a little Orwellian to
me. Do you want Uncle Sam spying on you? I'm pretty sure that sometime
during this, they'll figure out a way to do that, as well--without you
knowing about it. Besides, the government has a tendency to screw up a
lot of the things they get their hands on.As far as filtering
out websites, what happened to the first amendment? Even some of the
porn sites are (supposedly) covered by the 1st Amendment.The
only good thing the government did regarding the internet was when they
parceled it out all over and let individual ISP's decide what
could/could not be done. For the most part, though, the ISP's have
stayed out of it and left it up to the subscriber. (Which is how it
should be.)I could probably get used to advertising on the web.
Heck, we have it on the radio, the TV and now in movie theaters. Why
should the internet be any different?
Anyway, except for
the free part, I think I'd rather keep it as it is. So, I guess I'm not
quite split 50/50 on it. More like 70/30.
AndyYankee17
July 25, 2008 at 10:00pm
the only thing I can think of that gets filtered on the web in the united states is comcast throttling bittorrent and they already have a ton of lawsuits against them. If the goverment filters anything on the net you can expect a mob of lawyers marching towards washington
Kargg
July 25, 2008 at 12:00pm
I'm kind of split 50/50 on it. I like the idea of having free internet, but having the government do it sounds a little Orwellian to me. Do you want Uncle Sam spying on you? I'm pretty sure that sometime during this, they'll figure out a way to do that, as well--without you knowing about it. Besides, the government has a tendency to screw up a lot of the things they get their hands on.
As far as filtering out websites, what happened to the first amendment? Even some of the porn sites are (supposedly) covered by the 1st Amendment.
The only good thing the government did regarding the internet was when they parceled it out all over and let individual ISP's decide what could/could not be done. For the most part, though, the ISP's have stayed out of it and left it up to the subscriber. (Which is how it should be.)
I could probably get used to advertising on the web. Heck, we have it on the radio, the TV and now in movie theaters. Why should the internet be any different?
Anyway, except for the free part, I think I'd rather keep it as it is. So, I guess I'm not quite split 50/50 on it. More like 70/30.
AndyYankee17
July 25, 2008 at 9:16am
the government filtering out websites, now that's not violating civil rights now is it?
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Analysts: 9-Inch Kindle Fire This Summer http://t.co/QDYApwCZ1 day 1 hour ago
- maximumpc: Micron: DRAM Prices Likely as Low as They're Going to Get http://t.co/fFUWuFOm1 day 4 hours ago
- maximumpc: Yar, Mateys! All Of Pirate Bay Made Available As A Single 90MB Zip File http://t.co/j5LHlXEZ1 day 6 hours ago
