This happens to be a pet idea of mine - I think Nationwide wi-fi is something we MUST do. I think absolutely everyone in the country should have access to the internet. I could blab on and on about how I think the Internet is the most important social innovation since the printing press, but that’s not the debate here. The debate is, why would anyone be opposed to a Nationwide wi-fi initiative? Sure it won’t be free, but in terms of federal initiatives I’m sure it would have a very reasonable budget.
Bush seems to oppose the idea, but it doesn’t really explain in the article why. Anyone else want to explain exactly what is bad about this idea?
I would like Nationwide wi-fi too, but I’m sure it would cost a lot. Maybe that why Bush is against it. I have also wondered whether a bit torrent type thing could be set up where people donate their excess bandwidth in slow times to the national network so that you have a patch work type thing. Something like that might be able to be done in a cheaper fashion.
My first thought is cost. With all the cellphone companies out there, I still go places where cellphone connection is non-existant. Now increase the bandwidth/clarity to meet internet requirements, and I can’t imagine how much it would cost to have complete border-to-border wireless internet coverage.
Why look at wireless? Wouldn’t it be easier, and probably much cheaper, to mandate that all phone landlines provide internet connection? I know of very few places that don’t have phone lines run to them. If you can’t or don’t want to pay for a more expensive wireless version, then basic DSL would be available to you. If you want to read your emails while in a restaurant, then the user pays for it.
It’s not free to run, you know. Who’s paying for it (or being asked to pay for it by the people who think it’s a good idea)?
They’ve been trying to get free countywide wireless here in SE Michigan, in Washtenaw County and separately in Oakland (or was is Macomb?) county. Getting funding is the big issue. The one in Washtenaw is still hanging on, but behind their hoped for schedule. I think they gave up on the other one.
I definitely think it is a far more worthwhile investment than handing billions of dollars to failed companies. Its all a matter of priorities, and I think this one should be fairly high up there. I think Bush is opposed to it, not on financial grounds, but more ideoligical free-market-invisible-hand grounds.
By the way, here’s the Wireless Washtenaw Home Page. I’m one of the free users they mention. I signed up when I was taking my son to a weekly doctor’s appointment in downtown Ann Arbor. I can’t receive it where I live in the City’s outskirts. The free service is 84 Kbps, about three times the dialup I used to have, or about a tenth the lowest speed DSL I now have. Here are their rates if you want faster service.
Estonia already has a nationwide WI-FI network (Link). Theres been talk about doing the same here in Finland, but so far nothing concrete has materialized. Helsinki city center is covered though.
I can’t read the article. It just shoes me ad after ad, so I don’t know his actual objections, but I can tell you, a lot of people have a problem with Martin’s handling of the D-block spectrum issue.
Sorry, for D-block spectrum issue, read AWS-3 issue. Basically, people are concerned that
This is a giveaway to M2Z Networks, which is owned by a former FCC employee,
2 The “free network service” they’ll be required to provide (768 kbps) is too slow, and will certainly be too slow in 10 years, after the system is built out,
that it will undercut the other commercial broadband providers, and
Martin will no longer be chairman in about 40 days. The Bush FCC shouldn’t be making such major decisions and hamstringing the new administation’s ability to deal with AWS-3 the way they want.
Bush is not opposed to nationwide Wi-Fi. He is opposed to mandating that whoever wins the auction for the upcoming TV frequencies be required to dedicate 25% of those frequencies to free nationwide Wi-Fi.
You mean the auction for stewardship over the publicly-owned frequency spectrum, of course. I personally think that TV and radio stations need to go back to justifying their existence “in the public interest” in order to use those publicly-owned frequencies, actually. Nationwide Wi-Fi would be a nice way to do that…