It would be great if this came to fruition, but there are so many entrenched interests that it's hard to see this not get watered down.

when they finally realize how much data mining they can do and how much control they can exert.

They're not doing it because it will help us, even though in many ways it will.

Buyer beware. Or something like that.

....they're not doing it for us, they're doing it for them. One big huge public pipe of data they can easily mine from instead of a bunch of private ones. There are of course public advantages but I somehow doubt that is (regardless the pretense being put forth) the objective.

We're not CTs, we're rational thinkers who learn from history.

I can't recall which web forum it was, but someone portrayed this as super simple.

The business's wi-fi merely has to detect your device's MAC address, which basically is a fingerprint of a device. That can be recorded. Associating MAC address with your location in the store and whether and what you purchased is next. Then they get your personal info from your payment. At the next level, analytics would tell you if, when, and where you are in the proximity of other MAC address, such as those of your friends' devices. Correlate this with social media, and voila.

Should also mention that forging MAC addresses is generally possible. It's not unheard of on desktops or laptops. I'd be surprised if you couldn't do this also on a cell phone.

a PC or an Android device?

Have a MAC address.

I was making a joke. See the smilie?

Amazon, for example, doesn't have your computer's MAC address.

ISP. I can see the MAC of anything a customer has ever connected to their home modem, wired or wirelessly. I can tell the brand and model.

The MAC address is in the ethernet frames. Those don't get sent to amazon. They get sent to you. Where your hardware replaces the MAC with your equipment's MAC and sends it up to your ISP. Who replaces your equipment's MAC with their equipment's MAC. And so on.

... not to mention the benefits of ending the telecom rape of American customers. We pay more and get less than almost everybody else.

The telecoms will fight this, but the voters and every business not losing money will love it. These are our airwaves. Time to take them back and use them for us.

will pay for it? Also doesnt there need to be a way for law enforcement to trace people down who use it if they commit a crime? How would they do that if its free? Maybe make it so to sign in you need to use some form of unique ID?

The network hardware in your computer or WiFi card has a unique identifier. It's only used on the local network and is stripped off when your data is sent along to the next network.

But if you were doing some sort of 'trace', you could track the IP address used to send the data on the Internet, and then tie that to the identifier in your hardware.

yes I realize a password and username setup has its drawbacks as well.

... the same one who is fighting for even MORE MEdia Consolidation,
the Julius Genachowski who is in Rupert Murdoch's pocket...

Rupert Murdoch — the guy who’s under investigation in England for phone hacking, influence peddling and bribery — wants to get his mitts on the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. These are the major papers in the nation's second- and third-largest cities (where, incidentally, Murdoch already owns TV stations).

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is trying to change the agency’s ownership rules to pave the way for Murdoch to get exactly what he wants. Worse, Genachowski and Murdoch are keeping this all very hush-hush, hoping you won't notice.

These changes wouldn’t just benefit Murdoch. If the FCC proposal passes, one company could own the major daily newspaper, two TV stations and up to eight radio stations in your town. And that one company could be your Internet provider, too. What is the FCC thinking?!?

http://act.freepress.net/sign/murdoch_powergrab/?source=website_node_feature

that will be reallocated away from obsolete public safety radio systems. I don't think they have proposed building a network of their own with it.

It's likely that the proposals put forward by Google, Microsoft etc are for a public broadband access system not run by the telecoms giants. Either way, the TV broadcast band will be re-jigged for more wireless broadband services.

Our republican and corporate protectors need to keep this kind of 'socialism' away from us. We really need to keep the private, expensive, slow-speed internet service that we have now. Pay no attention to those folks on the other side of the Atlantic and how little they pay for faster internet service.

and when a government agency suggests a government run something, and all of a sudden this place becomes like FR?

Where would all these billions come from every year?

I worked for a company that sell systems that do this very thing at the city level, it always comes down to who's gonna write the checks.

But that horse is out of the barn. It may be comparable to the interstate highway system. Licenses on devices and transaction taxes could pay for it. Need more details.

The plan, largely opposed by wireless telecom companies and supported by tech companies including Microsoft and Google, would open up publicly owned spectrum as super strength WiFi and take several years to implement. 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 “aby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphone” directly followed.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/04/1536631/four-benefits-fcc-public-wifi-proposal/

somehow I think that THEIR idea of free wifi and MY idea of free wifi might be a little at odds.

Your idea of "free" means that you pay less to get a better service.

Their idea of "free" means that they pay less to profit from it and that
redirects *their* bills to *you* (directly or indirectly).

It's funny how many people upthread have leapt to the previously unreachable
conclusion that this "free" wifi means a step towards a socialist utopia without
understanding that with *exactly* the same people at the top controlling things,
it simply is not going to happen.

Talk about "wake up and smell the coffee" ...?!