The company, whose CEO is a former wireless regulator for the FCC, plans only to charge consumers for wireless modems programmed to pick up M2Z's wireless signal. The Internet would be prefiltered for adult content and content deemed inappropriate for minors, eliminating the need for a separate filtering device.
Before this national Internet plan can become even close to a reality, M2Z must be approved by the FCC to be licensed to a segment of the broadband spectrum — virtual property that sold for $14 billion at a recent auction for broadband space.
The thought that the space would be licensed to a company for free has heated up many large Internet carriers, such as Verizon and AT&T.
"The spectrum sought by M2Z must be auctioned and cannot simply be licensed to one entity for free," attorneys for Verizon wrote in a statement.
T3 Report founder Brandon Shalton told XBIZ that he absolutely believes that M2Z's offer to filter obscenity from its network is a way to better its chances of FCC approval.
"Since they are offering 'free' access — after you pay for the wireless modem — it would be in the public space, [and] therefore FCC has to approve," T3 Report founder Brandon Shalton told XBIZ. "The concern is if porn can be viewed on this network."
Through a premium paid subscription, M2Z also will offer Internet at a faster speed — the free connection is reportedly slow compared to today's standards — with the option of turning filters off. The company said this is where it will make most of its money.
Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon reportedly support M2Z's plan to provide all citizens with family-friendly wireless Internet.
"It's really about a protected environment where things can happen and you feel comfortable and part of the value you pay for is that safe environment," M2Z CEO John Muleta said. "In the broadband space you just effectively don't have that."
Muleta argued that the spectrum that M2Z is vying for has remained unused for years with no apparent interest from other companies. However, should the FCC approve its use, corporations such as Google, Amazon and MySpace are reportedly ready and waiting to jump on it with wallets open.
Despite this, Muleta said he believes his plan deserves a chance. He is making the rounds meeting with state legislators and gaining support from groups such as the Internet Keep Safe Coalition and the National PTA.
First Amendment issues have arisen, however, because a government-funded, filtered Internet service could be considered government-imposed censorship.
"If the commission stresses that this filtering is an important part of the commission's decision-making process, then I think there are going to be some constitutional concerns," John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said. "If this is the one single government-approved national broadband network, and it's going to be available for free and it's government-sanctioned, then it looks like this is government-imposed censorship."
However, Shalton isn't so sure. It is a free service, he said, and if the consumer knows that filtering is part of the terms of conditions, he sees nothing wrong with it.
"It's a gray area for me," Shalton said, "because if you look at TV, those are public airways. You can't show breasts or you get fined. So wireless Internet being in the public airwaves space could mean that certain restrictions can apply."
