That is the pitch M2Z Networks Inc., is making to federal regulators.

Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon like the idea, and have voiced support for the company's proposal, and several other members of Congress and child-protection advocates are lining up behind the plan.

"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," said M2Z CEO John Muleta, a former top wireless regulator at the FCC. "In the broadband space you just effectively don't have that."

M2Z's plan would work like this: Consumers would buy a wireless modem, starting at about $250, which would pick up Internet signals sent from cellular towers with no phone hookup, no monthly fee and a speed at least six times faster than dial-up, with obscenity filtered from the content.

Or, for a monthly fee, a premium service would offer speeds 60 times faster than dial-up, about the same as a cable modem, with the option of receiving adult material.

The company expects to make its money on the premium subscriptions, but also on the Google model of charging for ads.

The major hurdle M2Z is facing is getting the Federal Communications Commis- sion to approve the company's request that it be given a segment of broadband spectrum.

Opponents - mostly the large wireless carriers such as AT&T and Verizon - say M2Z is making an extraordinary request, especially after a recent auction of spectrum space brought in $14 billion.

"The spectrum sought by M2Z must be auctioned and cannot simply be licensed to one entity for free," attorneys for Verizon wrote in their filings.

Muleta says its situation is different. The spectrum M2Z is seeking has been unused for years with no interest from other companies. Furthermore, he says, M2Z would provide a public service, by providing free broadband to poor and rural areas that don't have access now, and by providing free services to emergency personnel, saving local and federal governments tens of billions of dollars.

It would also pay 5 percent of its premium service sales to the federal government.

M2Z is hoping for an FCC decision this fall. If it comes through it has big-named venture capital firms lined up - including the backers of Google, Amazon, TiVo and MySpace - committed to $500 million to build the network.

Muleta was in Utah recently, meeting with state legislators and other groups, emphasizing the potential for an obscenity-free Internet service and trying to generate letters of support to the FCC.

"The challenge is to make sure the folks in Washington understand this is a great idea, a great experiment and we ought to give it a chance," said Muleta.

Groups like the National Troopers Coalition, the National PTA, and the Internet Keep Safe Coalition - founded by former Utah first lady Jacalyn Leavitt - have written letters supporting M2Z's application.

"I know many Utahns would welcome the opportunity to provide their children with the educational and economic opportunity which broadband access can provide without having to become software engineers in order to protect their children," Hatch wrote to the commission.

Some have expressed concerns. The Media Access Project says M2Z's service is slow by today's broadband standards, and the 10 years to build the network is a long horizon, but the group says the proposal is still attractive.

John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, says M2Z's filtering proposal could be problematic.

If the government mandated filtering, it would be unconstitutional, but if the company did it on its own it would be fine. With the company asking the FCC for a government sanction of its filtering, M2Z's proposal falls into a gray area.

"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," Morris 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."

gehrke@sltrib.com