FierceWirelessFierceWirelessEuropeFierceDeveloperFierceMobileContentFierceBroadbandWirelessFierceVoIPFierceIPTVFierceTelecomFierceOnlineVideo

FCC's plan for free broadband could hit many legal snags

About | View Sample | Privacy
Tools

It appears the FCC is looking to fast-track the idea of a nationwide wireless broadband network that would require the licensee to use 25 percent of its capacity to offer two-way free broadband services along with open access (See story No. 1). Will the plan ever get off the ground?

There are multi-facets of the plan that could run into legal snags. The FCC has proposed combining the 2155-2175 MHz band with the 2175-2180 MHz band to create a 25 megahertz block of spectrum that would support a single nationwide license. Attached to the plan is the requirement for a filtering system that would be required for the free Internet access part to protect children from obscene content as measured by community standards. Blocking pornography in general can run into a host of problems. For one, legitimate web sites are often blocked in the process since they often share a single numerical Internet address with dozens of other sites. That is an issue the American Civil Liberties Union is raising right now in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is asking ISPs to remove child pornography from existing servers and blocking channels that pass on illegal material. Of course, the FCC will allow end users to opt out of the filtering, but will that be enough to fight off potential legal challenges?

Of course, we can also expect a number of challenges from the nation's largest wireless operators. The most notable objection in the past (the same plan was proposed by M2Z in 2006) is the fact that it wouldn't be fair to tailor an auction to a specific business model.

And T-Mobile already made a filing saying it was concerned about interference and the fact that the commission is moving so quickly that it might not take adequate steps to ensure no interference will exist. Qualcomm is also vehemently opposed. The company, which holds licenses for MediaFLO in adjacent bands, is worried about interference too and has warned that Chairman Kevin Martin's free broadband plan could ruin the credibility of the AWS Auction 66, unfairly devaluing the licenses won in 2006, according to an article in Ars technica.

The opposition, however, doesn't seem to bother Martin at all. During a hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month, Martin said he didn't buy the interference argument. "They want us to put certain power limits on it and make it basically just available for one-way distribution of service ... So the only people who would be able to really take advantage of the AWS spectrum would be whoever owned the spectrum right next door in that geographic area. They really want it to be reserved to offer mobile video services, the kind of MediaFLO Qualcomm provides."

By all accounts, the FCC appears to be prepared to ram the plan through, regardless of the potential legal wranglings. And perhaps the bigger question is: Would such an auction generate any interest? Given all of the various stipulations, including an Internet filter, the requirement for free access and specific rollout requirements, how attractive is such a business plan?

There's a lot to consider yet the FCC is only giving 14 days to comment and a seven-day reply period.--Lynnette 

More stories about T-Mobile   Open Access   M2z   free wireless broadband   free internet access   FCC   American Civil Liberties Union  

Comments

I think this needs to go through as soon as possible.With the amount of persons using E-MAIL and Internet as their primary means of communications to save money....A "ON-LINE 911" BAND/EMERGENCY BAND at least is needed for small laptops and PDA-monoccular/HMD display units.
Auctioning 2155 spectrum to a single national license holder w/ the requirement to offer frree broadband to 25% of subs, is one step closer towards the death of the Free Internet. This is clearly one legislator that needs educated. The Hope- Trading free boardband to more consumers (the greater good), in exchange for giving up competition. But in reality... 1) Auctioning on an exclusive national level, will guarantee small providers won't ever have any spectrum licenses. (giving up something) 2) Requiring 95% build out, will guarantee a small provider will never be able to fund it. (giving up something) 3) Requiring 95% coverage, something that will never be technically possible, and something that will never be able to be enforced, as enforcing it would result in harming those that were served. (The scam) 4) Requiring 95% tile and 25% to free subscribers, again something that won't fly, as there is no motive to support the free subscribers adequately, after all is said and done, and the FCC would never get away with aking the spectrum back after the fact, resulting in shutting down the 75% that were served, at least not for a very long transition period. (the scam) 5) By creating a system that requires FREE broadband to 95% of America, now creates competition for the small wireless provider that is already struggling to serve markets that are barely financially viable to serve based on their rurality. I wouldn't be surprised if the winners would only supply the free broadband to locations where their are other known WISP competition. Its just another example of a plan, where a legislator has no problem giving away the public's spectrum, asking for broadband to be controlled by a few, and make it more difficult for small competior providers, instead of getting the 7000 existing ISPs, more usable spectrum to share. 2155 should not be auctioned, and it should be given to the public via unlicenced part15 rules or light unexclusive licensing following Part90 rules. There is an army of third party providers ready to go to serve America, all they need is spectrum.
How about the "proven record" plan. And the "subsidize the small emerging local busines" plan. Allocate regional licenses, and give it away on a first come first serve basis. Have a limit, that the buyer, can not currently be doing over 5 million a year in revenue. The buyer must have a minimum of 100 subscribers in the area that they are requesting the license for, and invested over $50,000 of their own money, and been in business over 1 year, suggesting that they are already involved in executing a business plan for delivering broadband, and have a stake in the game. Put in provisions that prevent the "resale of the spectrum", for 10 years, without first auctioning the licensed assets with the government as the beneficiary. What this will do is, encourage a huge amount of matching new investment from third party fincaniors to independent growing Wireless Broadband providers as the recipients. True competition will be made, and viable business models will be built, by those that understand wireless technology. Leave in the FREE services to 25%, as most WISPs would have no problem with that clause.
free TV is a business model that has worked well for many years. why shouldn't the FCC require that someone with access to airwaves offer such a service? if the auction is unsuccessful, then they can do it again with different rules.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

What is 18 + 47?
To combat spam, please solve the math question above.