The startup company m2z has been trying to obtain frequencies through the fcc, in which it wants to offer america free internet. (premium internet through the same company available at higher price of course.) The FCC denied the application without any comment on why it was denied.
Information is power, and this company is wanting to provide internet access to 95% of americans free of charge. It may not be the fastest internet, but it would be accessable to everyone regardless of income.
Oh common, lets keep the perspective here. There could be a million valid (or invalid) reasons why a startup company would be denied such a license, but keeping perhaps 2%(*) of the Americans away from information is neither credible nor logical.
(*) 75% of Americans have internet access today. Of the remaining 25%, I suspect a large majority does not want internet, does not have a computer, can not afford a computer, can not work with a computer, or is even illiterate (or any combination thereoff). Free broadband would make internet cheaper perhaps, but it would do very little to increase the number of people connected. It would actually only appeal to those that use free dialup today, so they are already connected.
If the US government is so worried about this medium, restricting access is not going to work; it is going to have regulate content. Start by promoting ISP level content filters against (child)porn, spam or whatever, later enforce such filter, then extend slowly. At some point introduce certificates to websites to ensure passage through the filters, later turn the switch so only certified websites can pass through. And even that would probably not work.
Of those 75%, how many have internet fast enough to do things like watch streaming video? Dial up does not run fast enough for the majority of rural citizens to perform things online daily. Hours to download something, then maybe can watch it the next day...
For online companies like TheRealNews, free, cheap highspeed internet access would ensure their message could reach everyone, and not only those well off enough to afford 20 bucks a month.
The powers that be, you know, the ones really in charge of our government, do want to control the internet just as they control the rest of the media out there. There has been enough debates in congress regarding net neutrality to prove that. There has been some of the video clips posted on junkies, but there are tons more on youtube if you have not seen them already.
The problem with radio frequencies is you can not monitor who is on the reciving end of the transmission for the most part. You can find out where the source is, but not who is picking it up. That is part of the reason our TV & Radio is going through a manditory switch to HD. Its trackable.
So, just as the Government (for our 'security' of course) has been tracking what we buy, what books we read at the library, and where we are going on the internet, they will now have the ability to monitor what we watch in our own homes. Remember the Virginia Tech incident? Within hours they pulled up files and knew what the kid bid on ebay, what he purchased on ebay, where he purchased the other firearms, etc. They had the information. Now, did their knowledge make the students any safer? No.
Knowing and not doing, is the same as not knowing at all... I'd rather they just not know.
The Bush adminstration not only admitted that they were spying on American Citizens, but he ended up signing an executive order making it legal for him to do so. One of the problems with executive orders, is they really are not laws, and the judicial branch rarely exercizes power over the interpretation of those orders.
Information is power. He who controls the information has the power.
The time for us to trust our government has long been over. We need to stop relying on our government for 'our protection' because all they are doing to protect us is isolating us in our homes, stripping us of our constitutional rights, and robbing us blind while they are doing it.
Having broadband rather than 56k is no doubt more convenient, but hardly makes a real difference in this context. All the information you want is also out there as text, if you cant watch the video, you can read all you want about any topic. For many things I even prefer text, because it is easily search able and quotable, not too mention, printable, unlike video. And even the real news streams pretty well at 56k, it only looks ugly, but you will get the message even with blurry heads..
As for politicians wanting to regulate the internet; no doubt. I'm sure these "pipes" scares the bejesus out of many of them, and both Ron Paul's and Obama's campaign successes have probably raised more than a few eyebrows i'm also quite aware of the discussion on net neutrality.
However, regarding your statement on radio frequencies.. on the internet everything is traceable (in theory). It doesnt matter if the traffic goes over satellite, cable, telephone or radio waves. You still have an IP that is logged and given by an ISP that knows your identity, and therefore you are identifiable. If you know what you are doing, you can make it hard, but for all practical purposes, there is no restriction there.
Anyway, I agree with you on most of what you say, but I honestly think you are reading far too much in this particular story about the FCC not licensing some startup.
The issue is not that broadband isnt better, of course it is, it is that "forcing smallband" (on a minority of the population) would an extremely ineffective method to keep people from accessing freely available information. I'm old enough to have experienced 56k (even 2400 baud) modems. Slow as they may be, they could deliver much more (textual) information than I could ever hope to read.
Since we are looking at a startup company here (one with a questionable businessplan I might add) requesting a license to use limited public frequencies, Occam's Razor would suggest something else is going on.than an utterly ineffective government attempt to keep a minority of the people uninformed. If the government wants to restrict information flows over the internet, it has to regulate the content, not the convenience of some.
BTW, regarding subtitles.. I live in Belgium. Too small market to do dubbing, so we subtitle almost everything (thank God, because I hate dubbing), so i'm used to it. As a result, I have no problem reading it whatsoever. Not too brag, but some English programs or movies would be subtitled in both Dutch and French (one above the other), and I can easily follow the English narrative, as well as subtitles in both languages and still spot translations errors in either language If you have trouble reading only 1 subtitle, perhaps you should read more, and watch less tv or youtube :)
I am not so sure about the truly "free" nature of m2znetworks. There has to be some advertising involved and I would take any claims made by them of running a truly free and open network worth a grain of salt. However, I am equally certain that the FCC, along with the Justice Dept. and myriads of other Bushco-infected federal agencies, will do everything in their power over the next remaining 16 months to 1) restrict access to and new bandwidth for the Internet by all possible means, and 2) spy on any and all perceived enemies (i. e. non-Republicans) with every last bit of energy they have left. m2z's bid was doubtless rejected without one ounce of consideration; the 3 rotten FCC members could probably answer truthfully that they don't even remember anything about it. A better solution would be a government run utility that guaranteed high bandwidth and complete net neutrality, as most civilized countries now have or are developing. The parallels between the USA's healthcare system and its broadband capability are many. We are now 10th in bandwidth per capita and falling fast. The current system of relying on cable and telephone monopolies to build bigger and broader networks, a promise made in 1995, is simply not happening. These monopolies make more money by throttling innovation and expansion, not by promoting it. The more they expand services the less relevant they are from a service providing perspective. That is why they want to control the network, control and block content that is harmful to their hegemony, and basically turn America's cable and telephone network into a toll road that they own lock, stock, and barrel. And they will stop at nothing to achieve it. Therefore, I think the only wise move is to push for complete nationalization of the entire system. Hopefully Blackwater won't have me rendered to Libya for saying it.
Of there is advertising involved to finance the free program. From their website:
Advertising revenue will support the free service, using local geo-tagging for highly relevant search results (i.e. searching "pizza" will give you the local pizza place down the street and not a Pizza Hut in another city or state)
Interestingly, the free service would also be filtered:
M2Z will offer the free, wireless (over-the-air), family-friendly (filtered), service at speeds of 512 kbps
Now if this company had actually gotten a license, I bet people would still call conspiracy! this time claiming it was an attempt by the government to spy on the people, and restrict access, and TBH, I would find that a more believable conspiracy theory as spying and restricting is apparently this company's business model.
Just like I predicted I'm afraid :( AUSTRALIA'S PARLIAMENT is considering legislation that would let police add to the blacklist of websites kept by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
Material censored under the bill could include any content that "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate(s)" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime..
Hi there. New here to Real News Junkies. Just read all your comments. All news to me! Very informative. They must work fast because the video above is no longer available! This would be great for Real News to cover. Just remember though, positive thoughts render positive actions render positive results. Real genuine people created this country without the WWW.
I know this thread was bit old.. but in light of today's news, I felt it needed to be updated.
The FCC is still fighting free interenet..
They deny one independant company from offering free internet. Now they want to force buyers of parts of the spectrum to give free internet, with many conditions on the purchase. The problem with the FCC plan, they want conditions on the frequencies that limit the items transmitted, such as 'preventing pornography' or material deemed unsuitable for children.. They want to filter the information going across the free internet.
