The AWS-3 chunk of spectrum represents 20 Mhz. The area which they wanted to use for free broadband was 5 Mhz. How much you could fit into that depends largely on signal to noise ratio and a few other factors, but using standard modulation methods it would most likely be something around 20-40 Mbps. However, due to the nature of these frequencies the area covered is necessarily relatively small and thus wide area coverage is done through a cell-like system. At least that’s the proposal for AWS-3 and that cuts the bandwidth quite a bit since interferance from adjacent cells is going to be a factor.

This bandwidth is SHARED by everyone in the region who is using the broadband connection. You’ll find that it dries up very fast when you have many users, especially with stuff like video sites and so on.

If you were to allow free access to this, even with filters, there’d be a huge incentive for everyone to use it to the maximum extent. People would be downloading youtube stuff, video confrencing and making voip calls on it constantly.

The point is that there is simply not enough bandwidth there.

Also considering the needed infrastructure this would really be a massive undertaking – without paying customers it would basically have to be funded by the government.

You’re talking about building an entirely new infrastructure on par with the current wireless phone network that took 20 years and billions upon billions of dollars to build.

I’m all for more avaliable broadband, especially to outlying communities but there are better ways to do it: microwave relay is one way. Also, don’t be so fast to dismiss wired methods of getting the data out to outlying areas – wired networks always have big advantages over wireless in that they have more bandwidth. There’s only so much spectrum out there and we all have to share it – this is the limitation of wireless technology. However, fiber, or even simple and cheap coax can push many gigabits without encountering such problems.

Free market is right. If it is to expensive, don’t pay for it. If you don’t like the service, don’t pay for it.

The internet is not a necessity it is a luxury.

I agree 100% with the article though. The free market has done nothing to provide broadband access to the entire country. That’s why I have to live in town as opposed to having 20 acres in the country. Job depends on high speed.

Plus, it’d be nice to be able to drive around with my laptop in the car knowing I could get a connection without paying an additional fee every month.

I find it very hard to believe that entrepreneurs cannot make money providing broadband.

But let’s say that it’s true…

What does that tell you about demand? Obviously resources are in higher demand elsewhere, so entrepreneurs are acting rationally by allocating resources to where they are demanded most.

Government does the opposite. It coercively allocates resources to areas of low demand…The term “government waste” wasn’t coined by accident.

Entrepreneurs would provide broadband the most efficiently were there a free market…But like I said in the first sentence, a free market is yet to exist (outside of lip service).