Free, Super-Powerful Wifi for Rural Areas.

Zandar says it would be dead on arrival if it weren't the purest moonshine to begin with, but that's all the more reason to publicize the possibility of something that is desperately needed, would galvanize the economy and would make significant progress toward reducing economic inequality.

It would be brought to you by your federal government and it's being fought by corporations. Which one's on your side, again?

Steve Benen at Maddowblog:

The Obama administration appears to have raised quite a few eyebrows with this one.

The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month. [...]

The airwaves that FCC officials want to hand over to the public would be much more powerful than existing WiFi networks that have become common in households. They could penetrate thick concrete walls and travel over hills and around trees. If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas.

The new WiFi networks would also have much farther reach, allowing for a driverless car to communicate with another vehicle a mile away or a patient's heart monitor to connect to a hospital on the other side of town.

As you might imagine, the proposal is not without controversy. Municipalities tend to support it, because free-for-all WiFi service would make it easy to connect schools, libraries, as well as local businesses that would benefit from a broader reach. Google and Microsoft are enthusiastic proponents, arguing that fast, publicly-accessible service from coast to coast would lead to more commerce and innovation.
But the wireless industry is far less pleased.

If consumers can get online, quickly and easily, for no money, nearly everywhere in the country, they'd be disinclined to pay private wireless carriers for the service. What's more, local television stations may have to sacrifice some of their licensed spectrum, and many Republicans oppose the idea, preferring to auction off spectrum to the private sector for revenue that could lower the debt they helped create.

The proposal will need FCC approval, and even if given the green light, would need "several years to set up." There will be an enormous amount of lobbying, jockeying, and debate between now and then.

But the country hasn't seen a debate over access to technology on this scale in quite a while.

Andrea Peterson at Think Progress:

Some of the possible key benefits include:

1. Helping the U.S. close the broadband infrastructure gap. Despite being the birthplace of many internet innovations, the U.S. ranks 16th in terms of broadband penetration, speed, and price. A staggering 96 percent of U.S. residents live in areas with two or fewer wireline internet providers, and 5 percent live in areas without any providers. A massive public work Wifi program would help deliver high speed internet access to areas currently lacking and provide competition in areas with limited choice.
2. Using wireless spectrum as a public good. There is a debate raging over the best use of publicly owned wireless spectrum, with some business interests advocating for the space to be auctioned to private companies — creating the potential for monopolies. Using the spectrum for provide free internet access to the public is a way to to make sure average users benefit, rather than big corporations.
3. Expanding freedom of expression online. The United Nations calls freedom of expression online a human right, but not everyone has internet access in the U.S. and private attempts to build out access haven’t been able to bridge the gap. Eliminating the cost barrier by providing access for free will undoubtedly expand the number of total U.S. internet users, thus giving more people a voice online.
4. Bolstering innovation. Expanding the number of internet users means expanding the market for internet devices — that’s one of the reasons tech giants including Microsoft and Google are supporting the plan — and opening the way for more experimentation and innovation in that marketplace. The original Washington Post story notes that the last time the FCC opened up a spectrum for public use, creativity in the form of “[b]aby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphone” directly followed.

Kevin Drum concludes:

The real argument here is about whether a significant chunk of prime spectrum should be left free for public use. 

The truth is that this probably wouldn't create serious competition for wireless carriers and wouldn't hurt their business much. It's too small, too local, and too unreliable for anyone who needs serious cell phone service.

At the same time, it sure would be useful to have large-scale Wi-Fi networks available throughout the country for casual use. The rollout might be messy, but count me as a supporter anyway. If Republicans want to take the anti-public side of this debate, they're welcome to it.