Slashdot Log In
FCC Pitches Free, Bowdlerized Wireless Internet Access
Posted by
timothy
on Thu May 29, 2008 04:57 PM
from the so-really-we-don't-need-much-bandwidth dept.
from the so-really-we-don't-need-much-bandwidth dept.
Aidtopia writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing auctioning off an unused part of the 25 MHz spectrum on the condition that the winner provide free wireless Internet access. The proposal sets coverage targets that ramp up to 95% of the population within 10 years. The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content." I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: FCC Cancels Free Internet Vote 257 comments
Earlier this year we discussed a proposal from the FCC which would have required winning bidders for a portion of the wireless spectrum to use some of that bandwidth for free internet access. A vote for the plan was scheduled for next Thursday, but now the FCC has canceled those plans, facing "opposition from several top officials, wireless providers, and even civil rights groups." The internet access would have had some level of filtering, to which privacy groups took exception, and the Bush administration objected to forcing requirements on the winners of the spectrum auction. Others simply asked the FCC not to take on such a major project as the transition between analog and digital television transmissions looms.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Content Filtering Pulled From Free Broadband Proposal 111 comments
huzur79 writes "Electronista is reporting that Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC, has dropped the content filtering provisions from the proposal for free wireless broadband service, according to an interview with Ars Technica. Previous drafts of the plan required protection methods to prevent users from accessing objectionable content, such as pornography. 'I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away,' Martin said.
The proposal has received criticism and opposition from a variety of groups including the Bush administration, wireless companies, and consumer interest organizations. T-Mobile has argued that communicating data on the allocated frequency bands will cause interference and quality degradation. Civil liberties groups argue that the FCC would overstep its authority and violate the Constitution."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, about 99% of all media.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:4, Funny)
Only way to be sure
Parent
No defense against ASCII Art! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:5, Funny)
Only the first eight words are used, the last two are used as out-of-bound signaling.
Data is sent three bits at a time, each bit-pattern denoted by one of the remaining eight words as described in the table below:
000 word1
001 word2
010 word3
011 word4
100 word5
101 word6
110 word7
111 word8
As long as there are any bits flowing, _any_ bit can be transmitted.
Parent
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:4, Funny)
Aaaaaaaaaand, cue Peter Griffin's 'Freakin FCC' song!
They will clean up all your talking in a menace such as this
They will make you take a tinkle when you want to take a p*ss
And they'll make you call fellatio a trouser-friendly kiss
It's the plain situation!
There's no negiotiation!
With the fellows at the freakin FCC!
They're as stuffy as the stuffiest of the special interest groups...
Make a joke about your bowels and they order in the troops
Any baby with a brain could tell them everybody poops!
Take a tip, take a lesson!
You'll never win by messin'
With the fellas at the freakin' FCC
And if you find yourself with some you sexy thing
You're gonna have to do her with your ding-a-ling
Cause you can't say penis!
So they sent this little warning they're prepared to do the worst
And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be co-erced
I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first!
They may just be neurotic
Or possible psychotic
They're the fellas at the freakin FCC!
Parent
FCC FU! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuck you, fascist! It's people like you who are letting this country become totalitarian, because of your sheer fucking stupidity. Let me ask you one question, and let's see if it enlightens you: who gets to decide which speech is obscene, and which is protected?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bad things are created by bad producers, who will only ever produce bad things. Good things are created by good producers, who will only ever produce good things.
True. Slashdotters tend to be a cynical folk. In the end though banning obscene material can be very good for society; there will be no inadvertent or harmful attempts to look at or download religious materials for example and children will no longer be exposed to Fox News articles or anything said or written by Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
Hopefully the new rules will only allow content to be viewed that has sex as the major theme, because sex brings joy to the world. Among those primates whose primary
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot needs a say what? mod option.
Parent
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Encryption is mandatory over such a network
Parent
eww (Score:4, Informative)
Fixed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fixed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Possible power grab? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Possible power grab? (Score:4, Funny)
note: regular Fox, not Fox News.
Parent
Definition of "obscene" (Score:5, Insightful)
Some obscenity suggestions for filtering out (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind this! (Score:3)
Re:I wouldn't mind this! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, 'obscene' has a clear legal meaning: material that meets the three-pronged (I said 'prong,' huhuuhuh) test established in Miller v. California:
1. 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Such material isn't protected speech. I think it should be, but there you go: it's hardly surprising that the FCC doesn't want it on a freely-accessible broadcast network. It's an infinitely more reasonable position for them to take than if they were demanding that providers filter "indecent" material, which is a) protected speech and b) has no strict legal definition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's interesting is that, by obscenity laws, porn would be fine. It really would not be hard for a provider to say "When we're made aware of material that's clearly obscene or illegal, we'll take technological steps to filter it."
But like pirate radio, they will never be able to stop it.
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not. Note that pornography is entirely legal and protected speech. For something to be obscene, it has to meet all three of those criteria, not just one. Sex is certainly not obscene, and most depictions of sex are also not obscene.
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Oblig. Family Guy (Score:3, Funny)
Defined. (Score:5, Funny)
Email the FCC! (Score:3, Informative)
On the FCC front page, there is a link to all the members of the board, and their emails.
I say we email them.
Lets turn the ./ effect upon our government, and see if maybe, just maybe, we can convince them not to make the same dumb ass mistakes they make every 30 years trying to censor new formats.
Wrong Wrong Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (Score:4, Funny)
G.
Parent
Bandwidth and Propagation (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Bandwidth. 802.11b uses 22Mhz of bandwidth for each of its channels. There is not 22Mhz of unallocated bandwidth at 25Mhz. I'm sure that compression techniques are better now than when 802.11 stuff was defined. However, looking at the FCC allocation chart [doc.gov], there isn't much unassigned bandwidth near 25Mhz. A few Mhz here and there, unless they're considering usurping ham radio and maritime bands and otherwise kicking people off of frequencies. I'm not sure what they're considering "unused". Someone with more knowledge of on data compression via radio techniques might chime in
2) Propagation. 25Mhz is right around 12 Meters, which the hams and DX CB radio folks will know can propagate hundreds and even thousands of miles, depending upon ionospheric conditions. Take the bandwidth problem above, and multiply it by the fact that the precious little slice of bandwidth you get might be stomped on by everyone in the US during peak sunspot activity. This is likely the reason that mobile carriers aren't interested in these frequencies.
I'm pretty sure this is a loser idea. If someone knows more than me, I'd love to learn more about this stuff, though.
Reid
Bowlderized? (Score:3, Funny)
No need for a filter (Score:3, Funny)
Why so negative? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I know that when I'm working from my laptop while waiting at the mechanic, it'd be nice to have ANY cheap / free internet connection. $60/month for unlimited internet through the cellphone networks is too expensive for my needs...
Everyone is bitching about filtering... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm still stuck at the technological hurdle of actually being able to _implement_ such filters in the first place, given that it's an NP-incomplete problem.
It's all well and good to scream "protect the children!" at the top of your lungs, but what technology are you proposing to identify and interdict obscene content?
-- Terry
The Cost Of Obscentity (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the one they already use to charge violators such as Howard Stern, as well as the violators' station of origin, up to US$250K per incident. I'm not sure where it is in their regs (which I do know are online) but I recall quite clearly the sign in the studio booth at WUVT that reminded me constantly of the sword hanging over me.
What's always bothered me about the regs is the relaxation of the rules after 10 PM. When I was broadcasting, I had simultaneous netcast. After 10 PM where the station is (Blacksburg VA, eastern time) is only after 7 PM on the Left Coast (ie. pacific time). After 10 PM where? Was I simultaneously legal in Virginia but breaking the law in California?
Apply that now to on-demand, statically stored material which may or may not be infringing depending on the material and time of request. It's always before 10 PM someplace, so the owner may be liable according to the location of the requester. You can bet this is the way things would fall, because the alternative is to say 'it's AFTER 10 PM someplace', making the regs moot and removing a potential source of enforcement as well as income.
Oh yeah, and the context of the offending material matters. You can play hip hop and rap on air after 10 PM local and get away with broadcasting 2 "motherfuckers" and 5 "niggers" per minute, but try to say one of either yourself and see what it costs you. In the case of the latter, that may include body parts depending on your own color. The context of your reception can also matter, hence a "researcher" is supposed to be able to access an "obscene" web site for academic purposes without fear of reprisal. Yeah, right.
Personally I prefer Larry Flint's editorialized definition of "obscene" which puts murder and such well before sex in terms of badness. If that were used, you'd never be able to access most commercial news outlets, or much common TV or theatrical material. So sad that killing is not just accepted but expected, and fucking is outlawed.
OOPS, I think I just made it impossible for you to access this in the archives should the regulation of the proposed bandwidth go through. We'll see.
This is obscene (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the FCC is still scratching its head over why they couldn't get anybody to bid on spectrum that was dedicated for public safety use.
Anybody else think the FCC has lost the plot ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:50 kHz spectrum at 25 MHz? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with your concern. If we assume an S/N ratio of 20db (about 3 S units on my HF rig or noise at S6 and signal at S9 which I consider a good copy) then Shannon-Hartley's theorem says that they will get at best 333kbps. I used the example calculation #1 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem [wikipedia.org] and just substituted 50kc for 4kc to get this.
Anyone disagree?
Parent
Re:50 kHz spectrum at 25 MHz? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obscene Defined (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Leave it to the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd agree, but to be fair, the FCC is required to mandate "decency" standards on the public airwaves, so extending that mandate/philosophy to a proposed public wireless system sounds like a reasonable argument.
The difficulty is that the internet, at least for the forseeable future, isn't at all similar to broadcast television or radio.
Parent