M2Z in the Washington Post

This article in the Washington Post got me musing about M2Z again (see this earlier post). NetZero, a company that was founded during the Internet boom in the late 1990s with a business plan of ad-supported service, still offers the service. Juno was also in this business; both have since been acquired by United Online. According to their financial reports, they received $70.2 million from "billable services" and $11.5 million from "advertising" in the "Communications" category. The billable services have shrunk by $15 million over the past year in this category, while the advertising revenues have stayed relatively constant. Their paid accounts have declined to approximately 2,000 from 2,500 in the previous year. They do not report on free accounts.

So, given this, what would you say about M2Z's business prospects? Is the experience of United Online a useful analogy?

M2Z and 2.1GHz

This article, posted over at Ars Technica, is interesting. It describes a proceeding before the FCC by M2Z networks. What is interesting is that M2Z is proposing that the up-front payment for the spectrum (which is the policy in the US) be substituted by a payment of 5% of gross revenues. In essence, the US becomes an investor in the network, and stakes its return on the success of M2Z's business plan and its management's ability to execute it.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of this for stakeholders (eg. government, M2Z, M2Z's competitors, and US taxpayers)? If this plan is adopted, should the US government have a voting role in M2Z's board? If so, who would do this?

Update (2007-09-10): While this may be old news at this point, CNET reported that this proposal was voted down by the FCC.

Update (2007-09-24): The Washington Post had this article about M2Z's system.