After the FCC's tests mentioned early last month, andy1307 submits word of the FCC's report (released Friday), writing that "the major telcos disagree with the FCC's report that concluded that using white spaces to provide free wireless internet 'would not cause major interference with other services. ... The FCC concluded that sufficient technical protections would prevent major problems.' FCC chairman Kevin Martin's proposal is to auction off the spectrum, with some rules attached. 'Some of the spectrum would be used for free Internet service, which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children.'"
No, you fight over the remote, listen to constant bickering, and have to fight for blankets. It is not all it is cracked up to be. It was fun for a while but any man who dreams of something like that has yet to experience it. If you can get into a relationship like that then make sure it is one where you kick them both out when the playtime is over. Otherwise it is expensive and turns out to be quite boring after just a remarkably short time.
They want to SELL spectrum that'd be used for "free" service? That doesn't make sense.
It's also questionable just what they consider "not a major source of interferrence".
Some people may go to considerable trouble to pick up weak DTV signals. Signals that are weak could not be easily detected by networking gear that didn't have a large antenna attached.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is well known for ignoring community input regarding such things as media consolidation. Just when you think think current admin
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
They aren't censoring it. They are just not providing it via a public infrastructure. You can still go home and use your own internet connection to download/view anything you'd like. Please don't use the road analogy either. They don't let you drive any ol' thing you want down the road as they want to protect the public interest.
I'm of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction. It is not everything but it is a start. If I can turn on my laptop anywhere in the country and get a connection for fr
Either the public infrastructure is intended to be a major resource for the public, in which case censoring it is obviously unacceptable; or it's not intended to be useful for much of anything, in which case the federal government shouldn't be wasting their time with it.
Define major resource for the public for me please?
If, say, you include pornography as a major resource for the public please enlighten me?
For my thinking?
Email Browsing Searching Maps VPN RealVNC
Unfettered access, while nice, doesn't appear to be the goal of this project. The goal doesn't appear to be to allow the same type of connectivity that one would expect to have from home but, rather, to offer a limited pool of resources for services one might need access to while being mobile.
"Some of the spectrum would be used for free Internet service, which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children"
If kids want to find the content, they will find it with or without filters. I find that these filters are more often abused for control rather than used appropriately. Even when used in the intended manner, they are usually more annoying than helpful.
And what are the appropriate uses of filters? I assert that there are none. For an adult, the filter is your decision to look or not look at particular resources, and to turn a blind eye when something offends.
For children, the filters belong on the local computer administered by the parent if at all, according to the parents wishes.
Oh, and what the hell does "US of China" mean? I think you were looking for "The democratic people's republic of America".
School districts commonly employ filters to block porn, video games, and pretty much any content they don't feel should be viewed during school. That is what I consider a legitimate use, as the idea behind it is good. Unfortunately, they also commonly block large numbers of legitimate web pages.
I was referring to the Gov't content filters in China.
Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV. There are content restrictions on broadcast TV for the same reason they're proposing there be content restrictions on this free net access. Obviously they're going to be much less effective on the net access, but the motivation for putting them there is valid in both cases.
How is it "valid"?!?! Have you not read the bill of rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe that filters imposed by the government is abridging freedom of speech and the press and so do most other people. Unfortunately it seems like the government is as censor happy as China is.
No, not really censored at all. You can still get cable, you can still use the internet in your home, you can still buy copies of books, magazines, etc... Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. It equals an implied morality for a public space sort of like you can't legally have open sex at a public park even if you think you're doing so equals you saying something important.
'Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. '
Yes, actually prohibition of a type of content via any method does in fact equal censorship. Also your examples are terrible, cable is censored; books are banned in schools; magazines are regulated.
'It equals an implied morality for a public space'
The problem with attempting to do so is that morality is an individual and subjective thing. What is immoral for me may be moral for you and vice versa. There are NO agreed upon code
The only reason that most laws exist is to enforce a set of moral values. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape goats, etc...
This also includes saying things like, just because an adult can make that choice you can't show it to children.
These are the values that society has decided on and, for the most part, the majority of people seem happy about them. This is one of those strange times where they're doing what the people seem to want. Just because a small percentage think differently
I believe that filters imposed by the government is abridging freedom of speech and the press and so do most other people. Unfortunately it seems like the government is as censor happy as China is.
Let's not get out of control, here. The FCC prohibits a bunch of stuff from being broadcast freely over the airwaves, things like Janet's boobs. The reason for this is that televisions have no barrier to entry so users who find content objectionable have no course of action. (As opposed to cable, where they can choose to cancel it.) The FCC does NOT prevent things like that from being broadcast over cable or the internet. This is not China'esque censorship nor is it an infringment of free-speech. (If
it's much easier, and more beneficial to the public, to have parents install content filters on their children's internet devices than to censor internet access.
firstly, unlike TV/radio the government cannot regulate internet content. web sites don't have to register with the FCC or buy a broadcasting license. thousands of new pages and sites are added to the web each day. there's just no way for the FCC to keep track of all adult content. the only way to ensure children are completely cordoned off from such content is with a whitelist, and putting a whitelist on public internet access would destroy its usefulness and has great potential for abuse (see the AOL censorship controversy).
with TV & Radio, there's no easy way for parents to install content filtering software on them (at least not until the V-Chip came out for TV), so it made some sense for the FCC to censor the airwaves. this is not the situation with internet content.
True, but then the FCC is not entirely rational on the subject of "decency" in the first place. I like watching TV shows produced in Canada and not edited to comply with American broadcast "standards". I was watching episodes of "Dead Like Me" a while ago: the originals were hilarious because the language wasn't cut out (like when the Ellen Muth's character says, "I could hear the Universe cocking the fuck-with-me gun.") You'd never hear that on American broadcast TV. Stargate as well... the very first epi
'Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV.'
And as with TV and Radio they are a violation of the rights of the citizens. It is neither the pejorative nor the right of government to attempt to legislate morality upon the people. Or to censor what they may say or hear in any fashion.
We have a right to free speech. Nobody is forced to tune to a radio station, a tv, or to pull up a given website.
What about laws in general then? Lets take your argument further. You are stating that the government should stay away from moral legislation. What laws in force today are morally based? Hum? Lets see? MOST OF THEM!! Its illegal to kill someone in this country. Why? Its morally wrong. Its illegal to scam someone of money. Why? Because it is morally wrong. When subject ourselves to a government and desire laws that help provide a common morality for us to live in. Don't like the general moral
Well, we have a representative democracy if you'd like. My polisci courses defined democracy as rule by the majority which was a Bad Thing® in that the rights of the minorities were easily abused. Unfortunately we can't seem to settle on a real meaning for the word, not even Wikipedia has it figured out, so the debate is pretty much futile. Even if we go by the majority we still have a recent bill that passed bailing out the financial districts that was opposed of by a large number of people. I don't k
I find that these filters are more often abused for control rather than used appropriately.
More specifically, there is no precise definition of pornography [scribd.com] that filter companies can use, even if they wanted to try as hard as possible to do the right thing.
Would the filtering company be legally at fault if they used too permissive of criteria? Would they be at fault if they used too restrictive of criteria? Yes on either count, so the content-filtering requirement will be struck down as unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
All you [expletive deleted] are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the [expletive deleted]! We're gonna [expletive deleted] your mothers while you watch and cry like little [expletive deleted]! Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax [expletive deleted] who are making that movie, we're gonna make 'em eat our [expletive deleted], then [expletive deleted] out our [expletive deleted], then eat their [expletive deleted] which is made up of our [expletive deleted] that we made 'em eat! Then all you [exp
The FCC is proposing that the winner of a spectrum auction in the 2155 to 2180 MHz band is obliged to use it partly to offer free broadband access. White Spaces is in the Digital TV broadcast bands, below 700 MHz.
'If you want the real reaction (I'd suggest you be prepared for violence) instead of asking the parents of the kids there at the store, ask their children while the parents are there within earshot.'
There is something of a difference between exposing the children to the material (not that children aren't already exposed regularly by their friends regardless of the parents wishes) and making the material available to adults who wish to view it.
First of all, all of those things are already censored on cable.
This is one of those odd cases where they are doing what the majority seems to want. We can argue the idiocy of the majority and we'll likely agree that they're not that bright but this is one of those rare cases where they're doing what the majority of people seem to want.
That and, well, I don't really see this as censorship as one can get HBO, Cinemax, etc and we certainly have the chance to get internet at home which is still mostly unfiltered.
The confusion is simple, really - the telco carriers are using a different definition of the term than the FCC.
The FCC is using it like any technical person would, referring to multiple radio signals causing distortion between each other and making it difficult to correctly tune and receive a desired signal.
The carriers are using it to mean 'if they offer it free, it will interfere with our plans to monopoize the market and make piles of cash making customers pay for each bit they transfer'
Wow! You sound like you work for tha ACLU. Do you like the rating system for movies in the US and a lot of the world? Are you glad there are now billboards of naked women up and down the public highways in the US...especially those showing violent sex against women? Are you glad that when your little children turns on the TV to watch cartoons that they're not showing commercials with people being killed right in front of your eyes? Be real. There is a lot of consorship that help to provide a SAFER SOC
"Do you like the rating system for movies in the US and a lot of the world?"
No, I did not and I do not. After many years of nonsense ratings with no discernible rationale behind them, now they have more "fine-grained" ratings for things like "sexual dialogue" and the depiction of people smoking cigarettes. So... it has gone from a coarse system with no rationale to a fine-grained system that rates based on things that are just plain stupid. I am not im
It would be nice to be able to fire up my Touch and get my email though. There's fairly consistent Wi-Fi in my daily life that I can get away with that now.
I completely agree. In fact, tax dollars are used to fund public roads and streets, and all kinds of people use them. There's pornstars, bar employees, raunchy late-night comedians, atheists, bleeding heart liberal activists, you name it! People engaging in totally inappropriate behaviour, all using public infrastructure for free! Not cool. We need to get over this entitlement mentality.
This is example of how the FCC sometimes starts to follow a good idea, but then screws it up in an absurd way.
I see absolutely no good reason for certain frequencies to have content filters for children against the user's wishes
Internet access is an individual / personal use service, not a broadcast service, and other users of the wireless service are not exposed to content viewed or accessed by one user.
Whether or not content filters are applied should be entirely up to the user.
If it was the government responsibility to provide internet and free internet was a right of yours, then I would agree. I see this form of internet not replacing my home connection but rather providing a tool while out and about. When I'm out shopping, it would be nice to access my PDA and see what the competition's prices are online. When I'm on the road and need an address or phone number, it would be great to not have to pay cellular companies huge amount of money for a simple web access. If the only
29. Encourages Member States to recognise the social, cultural and economic value of allowing unlicensed users access to the dividend, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and the not-for-profit sector, and thus increase the efficiency of spectrum use by concentrating such unlicensed uses in the currently unused frequencies (white spaces);
30. Calls for a step-by-step approach in this field; is of the opinio
I don't think we're reading the same thing here. I see the FCC saying that if they sell a range of frequency for broad, consistent, not carrier-specific signal braodcasting, it cannot be used as a paid for service...just like TV and Radio. You don't pay for those but get the benefit. They are attempting to do exactly the same thing as Radio and TV but for internet now. The cost to you and I will be advertising to help pay for the service. The benefit for families, is that the government will still requ
If you have a problem with it, don't use it. Nobody will force you. That's your freedom. Providing unfettered access to porn to my child in my house is not cool. I'd have no way to stop the signals from coming in and going out. This is not private communication like a phone. This is public information that you will be given free access to. Want more. Pay for more...just like cable. Don't like the restriction, get the Playboy channel added to your subscription. There are not stopping anyones freedo
what difference does it make to the FCC whether they sell the spectrum or give it away? aside form keeping public interest in mind, they shouldn't care either way, since the money gained from selling the spectrum would not go to the FCC. AFAIK the FCC is funded the same way most government agencies are--by fiscal policy. they don't make commission on the spectrum licenses they auction off, nor do their employees.
that's sorta the whole point of having a government agency regulating the radio spectrum rather
'so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum'
They do, the FCC board has enjoyed the solicitation of a few major communications companies since the beginning. In many ways, that is the only reason we are still stuck with the FCC.
So does this mean we are allowed to write "Wire Less" now?
No, because truth-in-advertising requires you to be honest about it. It's just "Less Wire", because while it doesn't send data over wires, you still have to plug the damn thing in.
There's even a programming language for this (Score:2, Funny)
Re:There's even a programming language for this (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No, you fight over the remote, listen to constant bickering, and have to fight for blankets. It is not all it is cracked up to be. It was fun for a while but any man who dreams of something like that has yet to experience it. If you can get into a relationship like that then make sure it is one where you kick them both out when the playtime is over. Otherwise it is expensive and turns out to be quite boring after just a remarkably short time.
I should probably post this AC...
It doesn't add up (Score:2)
They want to SELL spectrum that'd be used for "free" service? That doesn't make sense.
It's also questionable just what they consider "not a major source of interferrence".
Some people may go to considerable trouble to pick up weak DTV signals. Signals that are weak could not be easily detected by networking gear that didn't have a large antenna attached.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is well known for ignoring community input regarding such things as media consolidation. Just when you think think current admin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Oh, wait a minute...
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't censoring it. They are just not providing it via a public infrastructure. You can still go home and use your own internet connection to download/view anything you'd like. Please don't use the road analogy either. They don't let you drive any ol' thing you want down the road as they want to protect the public interest.
I'm of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction. It is not everything but it is a start. If I can turn on my laptop anywhere in the country and get a connection for fr
Re: (Score:2)
Either the public infrastructure is intended to be a major resource for the public, in which case censoring it is obviously unacceptable; or it's not intended to be useful for much of anything, in which case the federal government shouldn't be wasting their time with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Define major resource for the public for me please?
If, say, you include pornography as a major resource for the public please enlighten me?
For my thinking?
Email
Browsing
Searching
Maps
VPN
RealVNC
Unfettered access, while nice, doesn't appear to be the goal of this project. The goal doesn't appear to be to allow the same type of connectivity that one would expect to have from home but, rather, to offer a limited pool of resources for services one might need access to while being mobile.
Unfortunately the level of
US of China? (Score:5, Insightful)
If kids want to find the content, they will find it with or without filters. I find that these filters are more often abused for control rather than used appropriately. Even when used in the intended manner, they are usually more annoying than helpful.
Re:US of China? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what are the appropriate uses of filters?
I assert that there are none. For an adult, the filter is your decision to look or not look at particular resources, and to turn a blind eye when something offends.
For children, the filters belong on the local computer administered by the parent if at all, according to the parents wishes.
Oh, and what the hell does "US of China" mean? I think you were looking for "The democratic people's republic of America".
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was referring to the Gov't content filters in China.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe that filters imposed by the government is abridging freedom of speech and the press and so do most other people. Unfortunately it seems like the government is as censor happy as China is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really censored at all. You can still get cable, you can still use the internet in your home, you can still buy copies of books, magazines, etc... Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. It equals an implied morality for a public space sort of like you can't legally have open sex at a public park even if you think you're doing so equals you saying something important.
Re: (Score:2)
'Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. '
Yes, actually prohibition of a type of content via any method does in fact equal censorship. Also your examples are terrible, cable is censored; books are banned in schools; magazines are regulated.
'It equals an implied morality for a public space'
The problem with attempting to do so is that morality is an individual and subjective thing. What is immoral for me may be moral for you and vice versa. There are NO agreed upon code
Re: (Score:2)
And I disagree with you.
The only reason that most laws exist is to enforce a set of moral values. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape goats, etc...
This also includes saying things like, just because an adult can make that choice you can't show it to children.
These are the values that society has decided on and, for the most part, the majority of people seem happy about them. This is one of those strange times where they're doing what the people seem to want. Just because a small percentage think differently
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that filters imposed by the government is abridging freedom of speech and the press and so do most other people. Unfortunately it seems like the government is as censor happy as China is.
Let's not get out of control, here. The FCC prohibits a bunch of stuff from being broadcast freely over the airwaves, things like Janet's boobs. The reason for this is that televisions have no barrier to entry so users who find content objectionable have no course of action. (As opposed to cable, where they can choose to cancel it.) The FCC does NOT prevent things like that from being broadcast over cable or the internet. This is not China'esque censorship nor is it an infringment of free-speech. (If
Re:US of China? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's much easier, and more beneficial to the public, to have parents install content filters on their children's internet devices than to censor internet access.
firstly, unlike TV/radio the government cannot regulate internet content. web sites don't have to register with the FCC or buy a broadcasting license. thousands of new pages and sites are added to the web each day. there's just no way for the FCC to keep track of all adult content. the only way to ensure children are completely cordoned off from such content is with a whitelist, and putting a whitelist on public internet access would destroy its usefulness and has great potential for abuse (see the AOL censorship controversy).
with TV & Radio, there's no easy way for parents to install content filtering software on them (at least not until the V-Chip came out for TV), so it made some sense for the FCC to censor the airwaves. this is not the situation with internet content.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
'Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV.'
And as with TV and Radio they are a violation of the rights of the citizens. It is neither the pejorative nor the right of government to attempt to legislate morality upon the people. Or to censor what they may say or hear in any fashion.
We have a right to free speech. Nobody is forced to tune to a radio station, a tv, or to pull up a given website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's euphemistic. Actually there are only four countries in the world that don't claim to be democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay. Regardless of what they teach you in school they often will then have you sit there and say:
"And to the Republic for which it stands..."
The U.S. hasn't ever been a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we have a representative democracy if you'd like. My polisci courses defined democracy as rule by the majority which was a Bad Thing® in that the rights of the minorities were easily abused. Unfortunately we can't seem to settle on a real meaning for the word, not even Wikipedia has it figured out, so the debate is pretty much futile. Even if we go by the majority we still have a recent bill that passed bailing out the financial districts that was opposed of by a large number of people. I don't k
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, there is no precise definition of pornography [scribd.com] that filter companies can use, even if they wanted to try as hard as possible to do the right thing.
Would the filtering company be legally at fault if they used too permissive of criteria? Would they be at fault if they used too restrictive of criteria? Yes on either count, so the content-filtering requirement will be struck down as unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Filters? Whose filters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All you [expletive deleted] are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the [expletive deleted]! We're gonna [expletive deleted] your mothers while you watch and cry like little [expletive deleted]! Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax [expletive deleted] who are making that movie, we're gonna make 'em eat our [expletive deleted], then [expletive deleted] out our [expletive deleted], then eat their [expletive deleted] which is made up of our [expletive deleted] that we made 'em eat! Then all you [exp
This is AWS, not White Spaces (Score:2, Informative)
The FCC is proposing that the winner of a spectrum auction in the 2155 to 2180 MHz band is obliged to use it partly to offer free broadband access.
White Spaces is in the Digital TV broadcast bands, below 700 MHz.
By inappropriate for children.. (Score:2)
..they're referring to religious screed, spam, violence, war propaganda and fox "news," right?
Sex? Oh.
Inappropriate? (Score:2)
which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children.
Considered by whom?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're bored then I'd suggest a simple test. We could all do it.
Walk around your local Wal-Mart (where the majority go) and ask all the people who are old enough to vote this:
"Would you like to hear the words shit, cunt, fuck, and cocksucker on non-cable television channels?"
"Would you like to see unregulated nudity and sexual acts on your local television stations?"
Any ol' questions like those. I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority don't want to have to block that content and don't want tha
Re: (Score:2)
'If you want the real reaction (I'd suggest you be prepared for violence) instead of asking the parents of the kids there at the store, ask their children while the parents are there within earshot.'
There is something of a difference between exposing the children to the material (not that children aren't already exposed regularly by their friends regardless of the parents wishes) and making the material available to adults who wish to view it.
First of all, all of those things are already censored on cable.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those odd cases where they are doing what the majority seems to want. We can argue the idiocy of the majority and we'll likely agree that they're not that bright but this is one of those rare cases where they're doing what the majority of people seem to want.
That and, well, I don't really see this as censorship as one can get HBO, Cinemax, etc and we certainly have the chance to get internet at home which is still mostly unfiltered.
"Interference" (Score:2)
The confusion is simple, really - the telco carriers are using a different definition of the term than the FCC.
The FCC is using it like any technical person would, referring to multiple radio signals causing distortion between each other and making it difficult to correctly tune and receive a desired signal.
The carriers are using it to mean 'if they offer it free, it will interfere with our plans to monopoize the market and make piles of cash making customers pay for each bit they transfer'
What content? Whose children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which content? Whose children? The government thinks it has the right, or the knowledge, to decide for ME what MY children should be able to access?
I have said this before, but I think it's all just a scam to get people used to censorship.
Government needs to keep its goddamned hands off of the censorship button. The 'censored net' is a concept proposed by fools. For fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
"Do you like the rating system for movies in the US and a lot of the world?"
No, I did not and I do not. After many years of nonsense ratings with no discernible rationale behind them, now they have more "fine-grained" ratings for things like "sexual dialogue" and the depiction of people smoking cigarettes. So... it has gone from a coarse system with no rationale to a fine-grained system that rates based on things that are just plain stupid. I am not im
So I guess (Score:2)
It would be nice to be able to fire up my Touch and get my email though. There's fairly consistent Wi-Fi in my daily life that I can get away with that now.
But look at the cluster fuck Wi-Max became.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC's job has, is and always will be to censor content that is broadcast in the US. It is the central and primary purpose of the organization.
Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is example of how the FCC sometimes starts to follow a good idea, but then screws it up in an absurd way.
I see absolutely no good reason for certain frequencies to have content filters for children against the user's wishes
Internet access is an individual / personal use service, not a broadcast service, and other users of the wireless service are not exposed to content viewed or accessed by one user.
Whether or not content filters are applied should be entirely up to the user.
I predict this "fi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was the government responsibility to provide internet and free internet was a right of yours
The government is not providing the internet. And ultimately this service might replace your typical home internet connection, for most people.
They are doing the equivalent of a city/state government allowing cable companies to run cables through public property.
And requiring the land owners (rightholders according to the deeds that the government has issued), to allow cable lines to cross their property
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU Patrizia Toia recently got a similar report adopted by the European Parliament. [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what difference does it make to the FCC whether they sell the spectrum or give it away? aside form keeping public interest in mind, they shouldn't care either way, since the money gained from selling the spectrum would not go to the FCC. AFAIK the FCC is funded the same way most government agencies are--by fiscal policy. they don't make commission on the spectrum licenses they auction off, nor do their employees.
that's sorta the whole point of having a government agency regulating the radio spectrum rather
Re: (Score:2)
'so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum'
They do, the FCC board has enjoyed the solicitation of a few major communications companies since the beginning. In many ways, that is the only reason we are still stuck with the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
So does this mean we are allowed to write "Wire Less" now?
No, because truth-in-advertising requires you to be honest about it. It's just "Less Wire", because while it doesn't send data over wires, you still have to plug the damn thing in.