Filing: MAP and PK Support of M2Z Application; FCC Docket WT 07-16

Most recent activity:

This letter is also available in PDF format.

March 2, 2007

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

RE: Docket WT 07-16

Dear Ms. Dortch:

We are writing to express qualified support for the application of M2Z Networks, Inc. for license and authority to operate a broadband wireless service in the 2155-2175 MHz band.

At the outset, we stress that the Commission should act expeditiously with respect to the M2Z proposal. No one benefits from delay. If the Commission finds merit in M2Z's plan, its success depends to a considerable degree on the speed with which the Commission acts. On the other hand, if the Commission is ill-disposed to grant the application, it is important that other plans be made for the deployment of the spectrum.

Our general policy preference is for expanding unlicensed service, and were it technologically and economically feasible to create a reservation in the 2155-2175 MHz band for such uses, we would be less supportive of the M2Z proposal. However, we are persuaded by M2Z's submission that its exclusive licensed approach is more likely to be workable. Moreover, and in any event, M2Z's proposal is vastly superior to an auction of the spectrum in question.

Viewed on its own merits, the M2Z proposal is highly attractive. M2Z is straightforward and candid about the concessions it seeks and the compensation it is willing to provide. We especially applaud M2Z's highly transparent approach with respect to the technology it intends to deploy, and M2Z's willingness to make its network accessible to any device of any manufacture. There are several aspects of the M2z proposal which raise problems that the Commission should consider:

  • First, the speeds of M2Z's service offerings are not high, especially for the free service. While M2Z should be commended and not penalized for honesty and making promises it can keep, the Commission should consider whether 384 kps is sufficient for future needs.

  • Second, M2Z's content filtering raises First Amendment questions. Content filtering technology is inherently imperfect, and overbroad restrictions could impede the free and open civic discourse which the Internet is capable of providing.

  • Third, M2Z's build out commitments may not be sufficient, particularly for rural areas and tribal lands. The population benchmarks are designed in such a way that large sectors of rural America might not receive service for 10 years, or perhaps ever.

The concept of providing a free and ubiquitous broadband service using spectrum that may not have especially good alternative uses is one which deserves serious attention. We urge the Com- mission to review the M2Z proposal, and to take highly expeditious action on it.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/
Andrew Jay Schwartzman
President and CEO
Media Access Project
Suite 1000
1625 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
http://www.mediaaccess.org

/s/
Gigi B. Sohn
President
Public Knowledge
1875 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20009
http://www.publicknowledge.org