<![CDATA[Gizmodo: free wireless]]> http://tags.gizmodo.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gizmodo.com.png <![CDATA[Gizmodo: free wireless]]> http://gizmodo.com/tag/freewireless http://gizmodo.com/tag/freewireless <![CDATA[FCC Removes Porn-Blocking Restriction From Nationwide Free Wi-Fi Proposal]]> The cockamamie plan to devote a chunk of AWS-3 spectrum to free w-fi can eliminate one enemy from its massive cadre of detractors: people who would use the bandwidth for streaming MegaPorn videos at 10kbps.

In an interview with Ars Technica, FCC chair Kevin Martin confirmed that the latest iteration of the proposal has eliminated the smut filter:

Why the change? "I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away," Martin said. "A lot of public interest advocates have said they would support this, but we're concerned about the filter. Well, now there's an item in front of the Commissioners and it no longer has the filter. And I've already voted for it without the filter now. So it's already got one vote."

"Got anybody else?" I asked him.

"Not yet," Martin admitted with a chuckle.

More relevant, however, is that last tidbit: this thing ain't never gonna pass. Despite being a poorly planned scheme from the very beginning, its list of enemies is pretty much everyone whose approval is needed to get this through—the Bush Administration, cable companies, congressional leaders, and on and on. So despite being a good move for removing censorship and all, this plan still needs quite a bit more drawing board time. [Ars Technica via /.]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5121567&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Beijing to be World's Largest Wi-Fi City in 2011]]> Beijing may become the world's largest city to be blanketed in free wi-fi by 2011. Officials, happy with an Olympics test run, are now rolling it out to everywhere. Watch for censor ganking though. [Danwei]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5106143&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[FCC Says Free Wireless Plans Won't Screw Up T-Mobile's 3G]]> Trying to add a silver lining to your undoubtedly dismal economic future, the FCC has struck down T-Mobile's complaints that the agency's scheme to offer free wireless to lower-income peoples will interfere with established 3G networks. In an engineering report, the agency claimed that there would be no “significant risk of harmful interference.”

That's a good thing should this plan, which would offer downstream speeds of 768kbps for free to half the U.S. within the first four years, and 95% in the next six, actually come to fruition. T-Mobile and its ilk have threatened to sue if the FCC's action impairs their ability to use the spectrums they purchased in any way.

Will it ever be though? I mean, who does the FCC think is going to buy something with this many expensive restrictions on it in the first place? [Mobile Tech Today]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5062951&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[FCC Planning New Spectrum Auction With Free Broadband for All]]> It looks like the FCC is taking up Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's dopey scheme to deliver internet to the masses with another spectrum auction that would require the winner to offer free broadband to half of the US within four years, and 95 percent sometime after that. A nearly impossible task, on top of being silly in the first place, so don't expect anyone to volunteer to pay for the privilege. There's no set date for this proposed auction of 25MHz in the 2155 to 2180MHz range, but the FCC is planning to meet on June 16 to discuss the rules of the fail sale. [RCR Wireless News]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=393133&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[AT&T Says Free Wi-Fi for iPhones Will Come... Someday]]> All AT&T's flip-flopping between offering free wireless at Starbucks and then taking it away—turns out it was some peon screwing up after all. An spokesperson for the company told the New York Times that the confusion was due to a "human error." But the day when iPhone users can definitively access the internet while sipping on frappuccinos will come, the PR flack assures, AT&T is just refusing to say when. Oh, come off it, AT&T. The cat's out of the bag already, you might as well roll out the service now. I'm sure there will be plenty of secrets you can accidentally release before deadline in the future. [New York Times]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=389243&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Free Wireless Internet For the Masses: Another Dumb Scheme From Washington]]> A California congresswoman has proposed yet another spectrum auction—the 2,155MHz to 2,180MHz range—with some hefty public-service requirements:
• Within two years of receiving the license, launch an "always-on" broadband with at least 200Kbps downloads
• Service is to be free of subscription, airtime and other usage fees
• "A technology protection measure" that would keep kids from the porn
• Publication of specs and standards, royalty free, so that others can develop for the network
Let me get this straight: You want some well-heeled for-profit corporation to pay potentially billions for the privilege of hastily launching a network that it can't charge money for, and let competitors provide devices for it, again for no extra money? I don't think so. I'm not pro-corporation, so much as I am pro-reality.

The Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act was introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and backed by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah). CNet points out that the bill sounds like a plan proposed by a startup called M2Z, which wanted to build a 384-kilobit network on this spectrum that was free, but ad-supported. If this becomes a legit spectrum auction, M2Z would presumably be one of the bidders (the FCC insisted that the company play by the usual auction rules). Rep. Eshoo says that her plan will hopefully engender "a new kind of national broadband service provider."

My instinct is that it isn't going to get very far, for assorted reasons:
• No company with enough cash to build a network like this would take the risk on a completely new business model.
• An "ad-supported" system of weak wireless broadband might be more annoying than useful, even for people who can't afford an alternative.
• The unfortunates targeted for this service would still have to buy or be given equipment that runs on the particular frequency band.
• If all you need to do is promise those low speeds, you could more cheaply create a compressed dial-up service that runs over traditional copper-wire phone lines.
• In the recently concluded 700MHz auction, the so-called D Block was left untouched because of its requirement of a nationwide public-safety network.

Sometimes I wish politicians needed higher-ed degrees in order to serve. This scheme could have used expertise in econ, psych, engineering, maybe even a little history. [CNet]

]]>
http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=381878&view=rss&microfeed=true