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.
Possible power grab? (Score:5, 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.
I think I had the same reaction as everyone had.. (Score:2, Interesting)
At first, reading the title, there was amazement! An FCC chairman, pitching FREE internet?!?!
Then there came reality: no 'obscene' content.
What the fuck is this, 1953? Hey, while we're at it, why don't we go beat up some Commies and re-segregate the South, then fine anyone who says dirty words on these gosh darn 'radios'??
Thats like giving someone a car with no wheels, engine, gas tank, doors, windows, seats or seat belts, and wondering why nobody wants your gift.
Essentially this amounts to severe packet filtering or an Orwellian 'approved' list of websites. Whats worse, is who's doing the filtering, and how deep? I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles that would classify as 'obscene'.
Fuck this. I can't wait for the day when I can go buy an open source mesh broadcast tower, put it in my house, and get a truly FREE internet.
The FCC, just like the patent office, hasn't been able to cope since the 90's. When are we going to fix this broken shit, and WHY are all of our government offices run by morons? (As far as I know - I apologize to any /. readers who run a government office and are intelligent and make good decisions).
Re:I wouldn't mind this! (Score:3, Interesting)
FCC FU! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (Score:2, Interesting)
Hah! I never thought I'd see a 'Protect the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN!' argument on Slashdot!
Obscene material is a joke. The FCC tried to regulate 'bad language' as obscene on the radio. Then they tried to do it on TV. They fail, and fail, and fail, yet they try again.
What you essentially posted is that the Government can't back free speech because free speech contains obscenity. The constitution has something to say about that.
Why do you want the government raising your children? Why don't you watch what they listen to, or monitor their use of the computer? You're probably the same kind of person who blames TV when their kid learns something vulgar, when in reality the kid learned it from some other kid at school.
Trying taking responsibility for what your kids are doing, and let the government worry about free speech, not obscenity.
And your red herring arguments get you nowhere here.
Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (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:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (Score:2, Interesting)
Well if there were enough nodes, we wouldn't need an internet connection. It would be its own pseudo-internet. Those who wanted a website to be broadcast, could set their servers up directly connected to their own little tower.
The cost argument is true - right now. The cost is coming down on all wireless broadcast technology, and the performance is going up. How long will it be, really, until something like this is entirely do-able?
Your right, getting my neighbors on board would be the hard part. If the government got behind it, it could be done much quicker. Maybe they could provide a small tax break for those willing to participate in it? That would get people on it right quick.
Re:Broadcast vs. Choice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't Pax discover there wasn't much of a market for a safe ISP. I suppose that would be aided by the free part....
hehe yup, PAX (paxway.com) gave up and refers you to someone else that only offers a filtered dial-up for $16.95+up per month.
Still don't see how one would actually run it for free. Would have to be saturated with ads i imagine
Altho if you filter the porn and presumably the stolen content maybe you don't need more than 56k to see what's left anyways
Re:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously you don't know how the rules used to be.
A married couples on TV didn't share a single bed until about the 70's. There used to be rules that if one of the two was sitting on a bed, the other had to be standing-they couldn't even SIT on the same bed.
Elvis' hip gyrations used to cause TV stations to only portray him...from the waste up! How pathetic are all of those manipulations, considering where we are in TV today?
There was an episode of South Park that said shit, what, 147 times or something?
Wasn't it recently ruled that you're allowed to show pornography after 10 pm on public airwaves? I can't seem to find a link right now, maybe that decision was reversed. Anyone know?
Music is only censored on the radio by some radio stations - they do it so they don't receive complaints by dumb ass ministers (like what happened in the 60's). But popular stations, especially big ones in LA, play what they want because they have the money to fight that kind of crap.
Just like prohibition, any government body that tries to regulate morality eventually fails. We should just see the trend, and start writing the FCC and calling shinanegans. Unless you're willing to live in a wholly repressive state, like Communist China or some oppressive Islamic regime.
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:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Interesting)
Obscenity isn't protected speech. Obscenity doesn't mean a curseword or a breast. It has to have no artistic or political merit. It has to shock the average person. 2 girls 1 cup is obscene. "Fuck the fucking fuckers" (in reference to some identifiable group, so it is an opinion and not a line) is protected speech, and hence, not obscene.
Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
You're not very bright (Score:1, Interesting)
No, actually, it's people like you who do not understand the responsibilities that go hand in hand with your rights that are causing this country to become totalitarian. Without fools like you who don't understand your rights, there wouldn't be any recourse for the totalitarians because the Constitution would stymie them. Not knowing what the Constitution actually says and means (you're wrong about it so far, all the insults aside) makes things worse, not better.
So blame yourself asshole, you're ignorance and stupidity are to blame.
If you were educated, then you'd know that. The LOCAL community decides. You know, "the people" as mentioned in the Constitution.
Of course, you'll probably have some idiotic objection to people exercising the rights they're given, that's just as wrong as your other retarded Constitutional arguments.
Come back when you actually have some idea what the fuck you're talking about.