Free Wi-Fi for everyone? FCC says maybe
Roswell resident Jan Oetinger uses the free Wirelesstown internet connection in Roswell Area Park. (Phil Skinner pskinner@ajc.com)
Follow us on Twitter @AJCBiz
(Updated 12:44 p.m.) What would you say to unlimited access to free super Wi-Fi networks across the nation – and possibly never having to sign up for a data plan?
The Federal Communications Commission is considering making free Wi-Fi- networks available to the public. While it could be years before it’s a reality, the proposal already has wireless service providers in a tizzy, according to The Washington Post.
The proposed Wi-Fi networks would be powerful enough to “penetrate thick concrete walls and travel over hills and around trees,” the Post said.
The idea is from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “Freeing up unlicensed spectrum is a vibrantly free-market approach that offers low barriers to entry to innovators developing the technologies of the future and benefits consumers,” Genachowski told the Post.
A major obstacle would be getting the free Wi-Fi networks built, as Arstechnica.com points out. The Post report partly stems from a so-called “White Spaces” proposal that uses spectrum from empty TV channels and allows the airwaves to be used for Wi-Fi or “super” Wi-Fi, Artstechnica says. But the FCC only allocates airwaves. Someone would have to build the Wi-Fi networks.
According to Artstechnica, the talk about free Wi-Fi has re-emerged because the FCC is taking comments “from industry players about the agency’s plan to free up spectrum owned by TV broadcasters through incentive auctions. Newly freed spectrum in the 600MHz band could be used for Super Wi-Fi, and other services that might expand mobile Internet access.”
Opening up more Wi-Fi access could boost innovation, according to the Post. Because of the Super Wi-Fi networks’ reach, driverless cars might be able to communicate with other vehicles a mile away or hospitals might be able monitor patients from long distances, just to name a few of the ideas. In fact, Google, Microsoft and other technology companies support the proposal because of the anticipated explosion of new innovations.
AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and other carriers, however, say the government should stick to governing and sell those super airwaves to businesses who can then provide the public with access. Some opponents in the $178 billion wireless industry also argue that opening up the super Wi-Fi networks could interfere with existing cellular networks and television broadcasts.
Should the government put the plan into high gear, or should the airwaves be sold to businesses?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
209 comments Add your comment
Sharon
February 5th, 2013
1:42 pm
The companies objecting specifically ATT should first provide everyone access as was promised before yelling about those who would give it free. Those of us in outskirts of cities still can not get access of any speed without expensive satellites.
Prez Obozo
February 5th, 2013
1:45 pm
I most likely would not use it since I pay bills online. Funny how these companies squeal like a stuck pig when their money may be affected but have no problem moving their ops over seas & putting people here out of jobs!
Tom
February 5th, 2013
1:46 pm
Robert Heinlein, one of the great science fiction writers of the past, used a phrase in one of his books: TANSTAAFL – There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I would say that applies here. It won’t be free Wi-Fi. Somebody will be paying for it. If the government is involved, that means the taxpayer.
Scootabah
February 5th, 2013
1:47 pm
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
Can You Hear me NOW!
February 5th, 2013
1:47 pm
I am all for anything that improves the lame reception I get from AT&T in my home!
Glenn
February 5th, 2013
1:49 pm
Really stunned by some of these comments . You use wi-fi to operate your garage door opener . I never once heard someone say who is paying for this .
Kenman
February 5th, 2013
1:54 pm
Run for your life! Once again the government is planning to take over a private enterprise, like healthcare, and will control all internet access AND HAVE TOTAL CONTROL to more conveniently spy on what you e-mail, what you view, what you say on “private” forums with now meaningless password protection. In fact, they can easily capture all your password info, and who knows what can of worms that will open. There are government website hackers breaking in daily to even the most “secure” systems!
As usual, this is wrapped up like a present, again like the “free” healthcare to those that won’t pay for it. But the power grab of the current government should scare the h*ll out of you, and you don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to realize that all private internet channels will go bankrupt as the grand government uses OUR tax dollars to subsidize this new takeover, once again undermining the once Free Market.
Kate
February 5th, 2013
1:58 pm
The current providers already know building out wi-fi to every corner of the country, including rural areas, costs vastly – by orders of magnitude – more than any benefit it returns to anyone. Hint: That’s why they haven’t done it themselves already.
I work in the telecom field. Here’s the reality of how this would play out. The government can’t build this, so they would contract with existing providers (ie, Verizon, AT&T) to build and maintain this “free” country-wide network at whatever exorbitant and irrational cost it would take. Then they’ll create a layer of 1000’s of state and federal government staffers to act as the interface with those carriers, requiring detailed pointless reports every month, and writing vast regulatory documents that accomplish nothing, in order to justify their existence (that’s how it works with the current wired and wireless networks). No other entrants offering new technology will be permitted, because, of course, wi-fi would now be owned by the government. Complaints? Sorry, this is the government and it’s now a monopoly – too bad if you don’t like the service.
So big business wins either way. The government gets bigger and exerts more control over your life. More money comes out of your paycheck over which you will have zero control. Service and innovation degrade. Ask yourself if that’s REALLY what you want. Think carefully.
Stella
February 5th, 2013
1:58 pm
Oh yea, they can do it. The only people who will be eligible for this are the welfare clowns and the drug addicts and lets not forget the illegals. The rest of us will continue to pay the high cable bills and get our taxes raised yet again. I mean come on, we MUST pay our fair share right? Gag gag gag
Scooter
February 5th, 2013
2:00 pm
The more our government dictates how private producers serve their customers, the more we morph into a fascist economy. But hey, most people just think fascism is a word for bludgeoning conservatives and don’t know they are actually promoting fascism.
DAMN RIGTH!
February 5th, 2013
2:00 pm
Of course that is the right thing to do. And of course business will get upset if the government frees up access and prevent them from gouging the public….what did you expect?
Butch Cassidy (I)
February 5th, 2013
2:01 pm
Can someone please get Kenman a tinfoil hat. I think he’s ready for meltdown.
DAMN RIGHT!
February 5th, 2013
2:02 pm
It wont be free because it will be taxpayer supported….Duh… that’s like calling Social Security an Entitlement…. excuse me…. We pay for it… its not free…
DUH
Butch Cassidy (I)
February 5th, 2013
2:05 pm
The FCC already regulates the airwaves and the bandwith, are you people stupid or just plain dip sh!ts?
stubioge
February 5th, 2013
2:08 pm
Costs would either be passed back to us as taxpayers or more likely cable companies and cell phone providers would raise their rates on other services to make up the difference. Either way – not free.
DAMN RIGHT!
February 5th, 2013
2:09 pm
Kate I like you points but the reality is Im not happy with the services for either At&t, Verizon or T suck mobile.
They already have a monopoly and you can only get the service they want you to have in the neighborhoods they restrict. So your argument loses validity.
Since the “big 3″ already have a fix in… why should I have to pay for it outside of my taxes. Who do you think gets tax payers dollars to fund their expansion any way? AT$T, VERI$ON and T-Moble….
Duh?
Why pay taxes and the Cellular carriers?
DAMN RIGHT!
February 5th, 2013
2:10 pm
*Kate I like your points but the reality is I’m not happy with the services for either At&t, Verizon or T suck mobile.
David
February 5th, 2013
2:13 pm
Why is it the first people to complain about the I-85 HOT lanes are always the ones to say, “let big business do it”? Having an open datalink available to all has some huge potential benefits for state drivers. It could keep you from running into a car that’s stalled on the freeway. It could instantly update your GPS with reroute information so you could avoid traffic slow downs. It could warn you of a natural disaster when you’re far from home. It is all the advantages of the internet brought to you wirelessly wherever you go. It is infrastructure and therefor within the legitimate responsibilities of government. What you should really fear is the government turning around and outsourcing this network to companies like AT&T. Back when NASA designed their own rockets we could land Americans on the moon. Now that they outsource rocket design to defense contractors, they can’t even repeat John Glenn’s 1962 feat without renting a ride on an ex-Soviet Union designed rocket. Our Navy was 600 ships strong when they designed their own. Now that they’ve contracted out that job, they can’t keep 280 tubs afloat, and their Littoral Combat Ship costs more than an Iowa Class battleship.
Justineisu
February 5th, 2013
2:16 pm
This is the best idea from the federal government in a long time. I deeply resent having to pay hotels and airlines a mini fortune for internet asset when one travels. If we had free wifi a lot of people would drop a lot of stuff on cable. Personally between youTube, netflix and a couple of international free movie sites I have already dropped the alleged “premium” channels which rarely show anything new. TV should be free and so should wify!!!!!
Alphare
February 5th, 2013
2:20 pm
I am all for it. If the government can get ATT, Verizon etc’s CEO’s annual billion bonus to pay for it. It will actually be free for the taxpayers.
Big John
February 5th, 2013
2:22 pm
Let’s start small with city or municipality having free wi-fi then expanding it regionally. Many cities already have free wi-fi and this really cuts back on these overcharged data plans the big cell companies charge.
Gomer Pyle
February 5th, 2013
2:23 pm
Can you imagine what it will be like calling customer service for the government when you have a problem? Shazam!
Drudge
February 5th, 2013
2:26 pm
Consider this please – yes ISPs, carriers do make money off of you…that’s why they are in business. There is a lot of competition in this space – coverage, speed, price, etc. Competition breeds innovation – these companies strive to have the best product, value and attraction to paying customers. Without that competition, there is no more innovation. The networks won’t get faster, devices will be limited by infrastructure, there will be no real impetus to fix problems – they get paid either way. How much innovation do you see in the Post Office? How about Amtrak? Marta? There you go…
Listen if you feel like the inability to get online in our wireless world is a real roadblock to your future, you lack the cognitive ability to wander into the tens of thousands of free hotspots in this city and logon – then I don’t think your input will be missed very much.
Blue Helpdesk
February 5th, 2013
2:28 pm
Interesting article. I would be interested to see what the total costs of this program would entail. I’d also would like third party consumer advocate organizations to opine on two main issues I can think of right away. Privacy and Security.
Blue Helpdesk is an Atlanta IT Solutions Co.
woodrow
February 5th, 2013
2:28 pm
Free government wi-fi. LOL. Well we couldn’t get ‘free’ medical care so I guess we can try for ‘free’ wi-fi. I just wonder how much it will cost?
Drudge
February 5th, 2013
2:28 pm
Justineisu – this wouldn’t work at 41,000 feet, no terrestrial network does – the airplane actually houses the equipment to contact satellites or ground based repeaters (depending on providers). You are paying them to use their equipment, not access the internet.
dee
February 5th, 2013
2:29 pm
I think that as a society we are already moving in that direction. Our WIFI is already becoming over loaded with activitie and it is starting to cause a problem. Sooner or later the governement is going to have to do something anyway. They failed to mention the schools systems could benifit from it too. They are already are encouraging kids to bring their own devices to school think of the money the schools could save and redistribute to other areas. No matter how big or small a savings is a savings and if it brings equality in education, medical help and safety along with mirads of other things then why not?
Greg
February 5th, 2013
2:30 pm
The amount I will pay in tax increases is substantially less than am I paying to these worthless internet providers. They grossly overcharge for wi-fi and deserve to have their business model shot to pieces.
Yo Amos
February 5th, 2013
2:37 pm
The government has never given anything free. Somebody is going to pay and you bets believe it will be the working people. The low income, non-working people will get Wifi free, but not us that have to work for it. In all reality it will probably end up costing us more. I do not trust the government as far as I can throw them.
Glenn
February 5th, 2013
2:37 pm
Kate that doesn’t make sense . AT&T’s carrot for taking over T-Mobile was that they would be able to build out there network to rural areas even though it wasn’t profitable . I love my AT&T dividends but I’m starting to view it maybe as stealing from Paul to pay Peter . Entrants are already being barred due to lack of free spectrum . The telco’s have been taking advantage of that have they not ?
Kate could the government do any worse than AT&T when they were a monopoly not that that would happen . Do you remember when calls were so expensive that relatives were always called on Sunday evening ? My guess is no .
Kate if this was a government takeover why would Microsoft & Google support this ? Because they could cut out your industry right ; ) Apps ahoy !
dee
February 5th, 2013
2:38 pm
Got that right.
Lexi
February 5th, 2013
2:41 pm
THEN WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THOSE PPL WHO WORK FOR INTERNET COMPANIES??!! MORE UNEMPLOYMENT? DEFINITELY NOT! WE ARE LETTING TECHNOLOGY HENDER INSTEAD OF HELP…
ughhhh
February 5th, 2013
2:44 pm
It is only free if you do not pay taxes…..go Obama go….
Glenn
February 5th, 2013
2:45 pm
Lexi we can save money by having them push a boulder in a circle 40 hrs a week or they can find niches in different areas . They will open up . Maybe we try and find it exciting .
Not Surprised
February 5th, 2013
2:48 pm
For the record “WE” are already being watched & monitored, that’s nothing new. And for the IDIOT that wants to blame Obama for EVERYTHING, there’s a reason your an IDIOT & NO you haven’t learned ANYTHING!! GET A FREAKING LIFE!!
Devil's Advocate
February 5th, 2013
2:49 pm
HAH, anyone for this obviously doesn’t care that the government would have unmitigated access to every byte of data you transmit or receive.
Intellectually Superior
February 5th, 2013
2:50 pm
Do you naysayers have any idea what’s the difference between cost and value? Yes, the taxpayers will pay, genius. Just like you pay for those good for nothing highways that the government monitors and licenses you to be on. Gosh, things would be so much better in this country if we would have saved that money we spent on highways, am i right?.
Did you know that the internet has been the biggest driver of economic value for a couple decades? Do you have any idea, what happens when bright young minds have access to the worlds information? Unencumbered communication greases the wheels of commerce, how hard is that to understand? And no, this would not put anyone out of business. By connecting, extending and building on this platform (as with highways, the water system, airports, trains, the space program etc.) businesses are offered (for free) a platform to build premium services while accessing new markets.
In America, we have a long history of private/government partnerships that create opportunities by investing in big ideas. That’s the key to America’s (past) economic might. That’s why Americans invented every major technological breakthrough. Moaning and playing the victim didn’t do it. I’m so sick of you simple minds spouting off like you know something.
Not one of you naysayers has created something of value for humankind and you don’t intend to. You’re negativity is holding you back. Just relax, pipe down, and leave the big thinking to those who are equipped for it.
Look closer
February 5th, 2013
2:53 pm
Terribly written article. This isn’t about free wifi it is about opening up access to unused frequency. I love how all of the welfare supporters jump in because after all the internet is a right not a privelage. Somebody has to pay for the transmitters and receiver and all of the associated utilities. There is no free lunch here.
Lulu
February 5th, 2013
2:54 pm
A real problem is wifi availability. Two ISPs are only available in my area and both have proven beyond ANY reasonable doubt to be incompetant at providing reliable wifi service. I pay $49.99 per month for internet service only and though overpriced the few problems I encounter are better than that of the wifi ISPs. I need wifi for ebooks. As already noted forget FREE. Allow the other ISPs to offer pd wifi and availabilty through this nationwide network can pay for itself. CERTAINLY THE FCC SHOULD MAKE CERTAIN PAID WIFI IS AVAILABLE NATIONWIDE BY ALLOWING FREE COMPETITION AMONG ISPs.
singletracker
February 5th, 2013
2:55 pm
AT&T & Comcast have the worst customer ratings of any companies and continually gouge us all, whether you’re a customer or not. No government regulators have been able to do anything about their duopolies (?), so it’s time for the government to replace them. No one here is likely to remember the Rural Electrification program that was the U.S. government’s make to the biggest change in human history. Nothing compares to the REA efforts of the 1930’s, but fully available wi-fi might come close.
Look closer
February 5th, 2013
2:55 pm
Intellectually superior is just the person I was referring to. Of course we should pay more taxes and give internet to everyone. Why shouldn’t a mother of four with no job not be able to update her facebook status or the 20 yr old high school dropout not get to play world of warcraft. By the way genius, capitalism is what has made this country great, not your socialistic ideals.
Synonomous
February 5th, 2013
2:58 pm
The trouble is, we’ve been paying the telecom/current internet providers extra money for years to build out greater wi-fi and internet infrastructure in this country. We’re the leaders in internet technology, but our service speeds in this country are a fraction of what they are in Europe or Japan. But the companies like AT&T have been charging us through the nose for those slow speeds, as well as taking in extra ‘fees’ for the infrastructure build-out that they and other companies never completed.
b6542
February 5th, 2013
3:01 pm
Santa Claus is coming to town !
obamaSIN LADEN
February 5th, 2013
3:03 pm
no mo guvment. plees
Alphare
February 5th, 2013
3:03 pm
AT&T and Verizon are no different than a small country government. The difference is, the small country governments don’t pay billions of bonus to their leaders. If you cut out billions of bonus to those executive cons, you will get your powerful WIFI to $20 per month.
A brand new everywhere WIFI will shut out those executives, and thus leads to a cheaper and more powerful WIFI.
Innocent Bystander
February 5th, 2013
3:05 pm
“The problem is getting a network built.” How about eminent domain? Seize something useful for once.
Synonomous
February 5th, 2013
3:06 pm
I repeat, we’ve been paying the telecoms and ISPs extra to build out IT infrastructure in the US for years. They took the money and built very little.
Glenn
February 5th, 2013
3:06 pm
Look closer . Your exactly who Intellectually Superior was talking about . Truth hurts yes ? You do know the spectrum that was the public’s was sold to companies and then sold back to us after our politicians got what they wanted . I guess you were a big proponent of the bank bailouts . Ya know giving tax money , actually borrowing money , to give to the banks so they could give it back to us with interest ; )
L-Dorrado
February 5th, 2013
3:06 pm
Butch Cassidy (I)
February 5th, 2013
2:05 pm
The FCC already regulates the airwaves and the bandwith, are you people stupid or just plain dip sh!ts?
Hate tends to allow you the luxury to see things as you see fit… Nothing like a Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, Islamic, Kenyan as the POTUS for mental clarity… LOL!!! question…..can you be a communist AND fascist at the same time? LOL!!
Gov’t subsidizes high speed internet in South Korea… they have TRUE highspeed wireless internet over there (nothing over here compares) and the “PEOPLE” pay a small flat monthly fee for it…even out in the isolated rual areas. People need to realize that in several ways technically WE are behind other countries. Time for us to catch up! BTW….. if not for the Gov’t and it’s funding for research, there would be no internet as we know it.
bikerchick
February 5th, 2013
3:10 pm
The idea of “free” wi-fi is misleading. The reason that you can tune into a radio station or tv station is because someone “owns” that broadcasting spectrum and noone else is allowed to use it. What the FCC is proposing is to take all of the old analog tv spectrums that were the property of broadcasters (but are no longer in use) and “freeing” them up to be used to send wi-fi signals. See below for the explantion from Matthew Yglesias, a financial reporter for MoneyBox:
“The FCC does have a good idea here and the telecommunications companies are evil, but there is no such plan.
The key issue is the difference between a wireless spectrum that’s owned by private firms and a wireless spectrum that’s “free” and “open” to whomever. The reason you can tune into a TV or radio station and get a clear signal is that it’s illegal for anyone other than the owner of the frequency in question to broadcast on it. The same is true for the spectrum bands owned by the different mobile phone operating companies.
But Wi-Fi doesn’t work like that. You buy a router, plug it in, turn it on, and bam—you’re broadcasting a Wi-Fi signal. The reason that works is that Wi-Fi routers operate on a band of spectrum that isn’t in private hands. It’s left “open” for anyone to use. Garage door openers operate on a similar principle.
The controversy Kang’s writing about is a longstanding dispute over what to do with analog television broadcast spectrum that TV stations were given long ago. There are many ins-and-outs to this, but the basic issue is that telecom companies want as much spectrum as possible to be sold to telecom companies while FCC chairman Julius Genachowski wants to sell less spectrum to telecoms and leave more of it “open” for public use. He and major Silicon Valley firms believe that this spectrum could be used in a way that’s comparable to Wi-Fi, except with stronger, more robust signals. But just because Wi-Fi spectrum is free doesn’t mean that Wi-Fi service is free. Any kind of “super Wi-Fi” is the same.
Perhaps if the spectrum were open and the technology worked, some cities would use it to build municipal broadband networks, but there’s no need for it to be used that way. Garage door opener spectrum is free, but there’s no municipal garage door networks.”