FCC Pitches Free, Bowdlerized Wireless Internet Access 298
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.
Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, about 99% of all media.
Fixed (Score:3, Insightful)
Definition of "obscene" (Score:5, Insightful)
Some obscenity suggestions for filtering out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:2, Insightful)
so no Bible then? tempting....
Re:Possible power grab? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:4, Insightful)
But you know what will happen... (Score:2, Insightful)
The christians will say: "Not only is this a great product, but free as well. Plus they will filter out all the smut... HOW WONDERFUL!"
1% will say: "Fuck that. Don't tell me how to surf."
And the rest don't give a shit. I give this a better than average chance of going through.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Encryption is mandatory over such a network
Obscene Defined (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ISP would only have to filter Miller-test-obscene material, I guess you can infer that essentially nothing actually meets that standard from the number of "hardcore" pornographic publications that are legally sold in the U.S. On the other hand, the Internet could probably shock us all with its ability to exceed the limits of depravity found even in commercial pornography.
The real question is how anyone could effectively "filter out" obscene material digitally. Most software filters for identifying any kind of human-readable material (copyright filters, etc.) are simplistic junk that return too many false positives and are easy to circumvent. The definitions for obscenity are so subjective that even humans have a tough time applying them.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is compassion without christianity??? WHAT? You just made the most ignorant, hipocrytical, bigoted comment possible. You just stated that nobody, save a christian, can feel compassion.
You also went on to say that nobody would help anyone out unless they are a god-fearing person. This is the problem I have with christians: You all think that the world is evil if it is not on your side. You cannot rationally take a position on a subject becuase you believe that all that do not agree with you are evil. Christians also feel it is their need to spread this virus to others. You feel that if someone does not think like you, they must be converted, or face eternal damnation. You toil to save their soul. You pray that they see the light. And you pass laws to "guide" us to said light.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis
I cannot wait for the fall of christianity... my only fear is that it will be after I die and I will never be able to see a life without the influence of the self-righteous bigots.
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
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.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Well no shit, Sherlock! If the government was provided directly then it would be an obvious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment. This way, it's a scheming, tricky, underhanded violation instead.
Re:Fixed (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bet it's more frequently used for sed (i.e., ed for streams) [die.net] nowadays, since that's more friendly for scripting.
Re:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (Score:3, Insightful)
I turn on broadcast TV and radio today, and I note that I still can't hear any "bad language". I even learn that the FCC is slapping massive fines on anybody who utters such "bad language".
Failed? Really? Wouldn't that imply 'not successful'?
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course I recall the funny story that before Miller came along, the Justices and their clerks would sit down with popcorn and have a 'movie day' to watch the porn that was involved in the cases that they had to judge that term. J. Black didn't attend; he felt that they were all lawful. J. Stewart (the 'I know it when I see it' guy) was basically blind at the time, and had to have his clerks tell him what was going on. The joke the clerks are reputed to have told -- behind his back, one hopes -- is that from time to time he'd announce 'There it is; I see it.' He was also a fairly liberal guy on this subject; he had been in the Navy during the war, so he didn't find the porn that came to the Court in his day to be all that hardcore, by and large.
Anyway, this is a stupid plan of the FCC. I'd rather have the connection be unfiltered. If users want to filter it on their end, that's fine, and I wouldn't even care if the government provided them with software to help (provided that it 1) didn't include any blacklists, 2) was basically open, and not farmed out to a private contractor).
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (Score:3, Insightful)
I find this offensive.
I also find that atheists are significantly more compassionate than Christians; while being less judgmental to boot.
Before you say a word, or come up with level of rationalization or logical deduction regarding the other major world religions, tell me what your first "feeling" is regarding my statement that Christians are a less compassionate bunch than atheists?
Do you, pray tell, find it offensive? Perhaps because it 'offends' some sense of knowledge and/or knowing that you have? Or perhaps its just makes you angry?
Well, that's precisely how I feel about: What other set of beliefs other than the abrahamic religions have a strong sense of compassion, really now?.
Now, I don't feel qualified to judge the "compassion" level of 'Christians', however, I do feel confident in understanding that compassion is a human quality, not a religious quality. Belief in Christ is not a necessary prerequisite.
Try not to make such inane, and offensive, statements in the future. It's not inappropriate to say that your Christian belief's help you reinforce your own personal sense of compassion; however, holding the position that your Christian belief's make your views on compassion "superior" to that of non-Christians is no less outrageous than racism or sexism. If you worked for me, and I heard anything about that at work, I'd fire you, the same way I'd fire a white supremacist, a fundamentalist Sunni, or a misogynist. I won't toot the superiority of atheism with people surrounding me, or try to convert them; you should give us the same curtsey.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Insightful)
So?
A wireless internet connection cannot in any way be described as a broadcast - the packets have a single destination which is well defined. Add some simle encryption, and not even the Holy Packet Sniffers of the Latter Day AllSaints are liable to be offended by this 'broadcast' porn.
Just because it's wireless doesn't mean it's broadcast.