Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States Wireless Networking Hardware

FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless 143

Posted by timothy from the just-use-a-contrasting-radio-wave dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless More

FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless

Comments Filter:
  • There's already a whitespace programming language [wikipedia.org] that would go perfect with this proposal!

  • 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)

      by Saroset ( 1383483 )
      There is quite a bit of money to be made off a free public service through advertising. That's why you sell it.

      • Precisely.

        >>>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.
        >>>

        Again, precisely. I can easily imagine the girl next door going for a jog & turning-on her whitespace-enabled Ipod to stream Miley Cyrus radio. Then all my Washington D.C. stations will disappear since her Ipod will think those are open channels. That's just great; just wonderful; how

      • P.S. Since the television channels 2 to 51 have already been designated for "free" access for the citizens, it makes sense that any internet gadgets which share those channels would also require free access by citizens. The FCC Chair is just being consistent with established precedent for that VHF/UHF band.

    • <p> Sale of spectrum is not new. Providing free services might have some advertising clout.</p>

      <p> What is "not a major source of interference" depends on Government policy. Here, the Government is pushing powerline carriage of wireless despite mountains of documented evidence of interference in other countries.</p>
      <p> They won't have any trouble in getting Microsoft to put it through their International Standards Association.</p>

  • US of China? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saroset ( 1383483 ) on Sunday October 12, 2008 @07:14AM (#25344833)
    "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.

    • Re:US of China? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sakdoctor ( 1087155 ) on Sunday October 12, 2008 @07:25AM (#25344879) Homepage

      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".

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Saroset ( 1383483 )
        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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by buddyglass ( 925859 )
        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.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

            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

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

                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

                • Someone else made the same claim that laws exist to enforce morality. That is a misconception. The constitutional laws (as opposed to unconstitutional statutes made by the FCC, some by the IRS, etc) that appear to exist to enforce a moral code actually exist to protect members of society from one another.

                  Although the choice to do so is a moral one, that choice is the basis for having a society at all. Without that and only that moral choice you have chosen anarchy which is fine. Unfortunately in anarchy the

          • 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

            • 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.)

              Ummm... Don't watch it? For example, if I don't like Microsoft I can make a stand by not buying Windows, visiting MSN/Live, using Linux, etc. If I don't like a broadcaster I can do the same thing, not buying/watching movies made by them, not watching the TV station, writing in, organizing boycotts, etc. If enough people watch them, so be it, no one is making me watch TV.

              • If enough people watch them, so be it, no one is making me watch TV.

                The reason the gov't is behind getting you broadcast Television for free is for the news. That's why there are FCC mandates about how much a television station has to air News, PSAs, and so on. It has become a fundamental service of the gov't and that's why they keep the barrier to entry pretty low. It's not just about sitting in front of a couch potato and drooling like an idiot.

          • How is it "valid"?!?! Have you not read the bill of rights

            Take it up with the U.S. Supreme Court:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation [wikipedia.org]

        • Re:US of China? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by lysergic.acid ( 845423 ) on Sunday October 12, 2008 @09:27AM (#25345329) Homepage

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) *
            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

            • The flaw with your argument is that *neither* of those were Canadian broadcast shows.

              Stargate SG1's nudity was on *American* television - the Showtime channel.

              Dead Like Me aired the same place - American television's Showtime.

              A better example might have been Davinci's Inquest which was broadcast over Canadian airwaves, but still had to meet certain restrictions ("fuck" is censored and so too is nudity). Now that it's rerun in the States, they provide virtually the entire show unedited, so the differences b

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by macdaddy ( 38372 )
              Stargate? Really? I didn't know that and I'm a fan. Do you have a season/episode reference? I have all the seasons on DVD. I wonder if they were censored too.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by cmarkn ( 31706 )

                Episode 1, but it may be in the second hour. It’s when Apophis chooses Daniel Jackson’s wife to be his wife’s new host.

                • To repeat:

                  Stargate SG1's nudity was first shown on an *American* channel. The original poster mistakenly claimed it was Canadian, and that the U.S. FCC censored it, but that's not true. It first aired on the American Showtime channel.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by macdaddy ( 38372 )
                  I'll be damned. I thought it might have been the blonde Air Force woman that Apophos was vetting for.. wait, I think we might be talking about the same thing. He was vetting her to be his queen if I remember right. Yeah, I think I know what scene you're talking about then. I always thought that it looked a little cut up now that you mention it. You learn something new every day. I wish they'd never killed off the series. It was a great way to kill a Friday evening.

        • '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

            • 'Its illegal to kill someone in this country. '

              It's not illegal to kill someone in this country. It's illegal to kill someone in states that have laws against murder.

              'Why? Its morally wrong.'

              Where states have passed laws against murder it is because they have an obligation to protect the citizens. Not due to someones code of morality.

              'Its illegal to scam someone of money. Why?'

              Again because it is the duty of the government to protect citizens from each other.

              'When subject ourselves to a government and desir

              • You need to take some classes in law, ethics, and philosophy. You're not understanding what morals are. Morals are the foundation of what helps us decide what is inherently right and wrong. You are obvously on the side of argument that there are no moral absolutes. I'm on the side that believes there are. Moral absolutes will transcend government, society, and social norms. Like it or not, laws are not just to protect us from each other. You have to decide what is worth protecting and why. This is w

                • 'You need to take some classes in law, ethics, and philosophy.'

                  Been there, done that.

                  'You are obvously on the side of argument that there are no moral absolutes.'

                  You say that as if there is a legitimate debate ongoing. Short of invoking an invisible man there is only one side to the debate.

                  'This is where morals are argued over until laws (common understanding of the morals) are agreed upon and enforced.'

                  False. Laws and morals are separate issues. There are no shortage of blatantly immoral actions that are s

                  • Example for you. Two biggest moral/legal issues in America today. Abortion and gay marriage. Both are based on people's understanding of morality and are argued over as to how to legislate (or not). Many items we seem to easily agree upon (morally) and laws are easily made. Others are not. Maybe a better question for you...how do you know what is right and wrong without morals? If it's wrong but there is no moral underpinning behind that conclusion, how do you know it is wrong?

                    • 'Abortion and gay marriage.'

                      Both are examples of peoples moral codes impeding upon the legal process. Both are excellent examples of why moral views do NOT legislating behavior.

                      'Many items we seem to easily agree upon (morally) and laws are easily made.'

                      There have been such laws. One by one they are removed from the books or revised. Unfortunately moral judgement can cloud the minds of legislatures, as well as the population at large. Other laws that have been made include laws regarding slavery, indentured

                    • Yes and no. You are right (and as I stated clearly above) there are hotly debated definitions of what is right and wrong. When enough people in a society agree (or a majority or dictator or ruler), it is generally made into a law. This is simply an obvious example of how morals are the foundations of law. And then NO, you don't want everyone to simply live by their own morals. This is called lawlessness. If we had no laws, there are some that are comfortable with destroying nature...they own the land,

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          That is an enormous misdirection because TV transmission are not in fact filtered at all. People choose what they want to broadcast and should that broadcast conflict with legal requirements they are charged with a crime, go to court and if found guilty pay a fine. So attempting to force filters is not really about adhering to sound moral judgement, it is all about locking people out of access, about creating monopolies where none existed and about 'controlling' free speech sic.

          They reality is children s

          • TV broadcasts are filtered at the content level by the content providers. Obviously that's not something anybody can enforce on a global network. If hardware (or "working" software) filtering were ubiquitous on computing equipment then I doubt the FCC would be proposing the free wireless be filtered. I agree with you that such filtering is not likely to work. My point was that the motivation for such filtering is the same as for broadcast TV. Actually, the impossibility of effective filtering is probab

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )
              Wrong, TV broadcast are in fact not filtered at all, they broadcast what they choose to broadcast and take legal responsibility for doing so, just as you would would expect adults to be able to choose what they wish to broadcast on the internet and take responsibility for doing so.

              • Semantics. Assigning legal repercussions to broadcasting certain content is effectively creating a filter. It is impossible to assign legal percussions to content providers on the net because they're either effectively anonymous or located outside the FCC's jurisdiction. Since it's not possible to filter by assigning legal repercussions, and it's not possible to filter by on-the-fly examination of content or the use of black lists, it is effectively not possible to filter net content. I've never said o

                • Why not make this simple? There are already ratings for TV, Movies, Video games, etc. Why not simply do the following:
                  • Create a list of ratings such as Safe for Children, Illegal Activities, Illegal Drugs, Profane Language, Hate Speech, Sexually Suggestive, Sexual Acts, Limited Nudity, Full Nudity, Violence, Mild Violence, Blood and Gore, etc. etc. etc.
                  • Have (text) and (image) for all of the above
                  • Have websites self assign defaults for the entire site based on those definitions, with add-ons to individual p

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by interiot ( 50685 )

      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].

  • Who would manage these content filters? Could they be used to block subversive content as well?

    • This one's mine!

  • This is AWS, not White Spaces (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children.

    Considered by whom?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

      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

      • '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)

          by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

          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.

          • Well, in a way it's just yet another offloading of personal responsibility onto the government. People just don't want to be bothered having to monitor their children properly (or risk being bothered by words or images that they personally find offensive.) So, lazy asses that they are, they figure it's just easier to let the government reduce the broadcast medium to something as inoffensive (and, often, as uninformative and unentertaining) as necessary.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

              The majority really aren't that bright, informed, or even all that adept at making choices for themselves. We let 'em vote. You get what we have but laws are just a forced morality for the most part.

          • '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 existence of uncensored content does not justify government censorship.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

              Says whom?

              Let me pick an extreme that was used in a conversation about this earlier today.

              I'm okay with the government saying that it is not okay for a provider to put midget sodomy out on public spaces. I'm very pissy when they tell someone that they can't view that stuff in the privacy of their own homes via private means.

              I'm okay with the fact that you can't put the afore mentioned content on a billboard - parents could just as easily shield their children's eyes as they went beyond it. I'll be pissed ri

              • "Says whom?"

                The Constitution of the United States of America.

                'As near as I can tell there are only a few things you can't have in the privacy of your own home.'

                Television, Radio, and Internet are all things that are viewed in the privacy of your own home. Unlike the billboard that you have to cover your childs eyes from, you or your child have to request the content in some form.

                'I have no problem with this in public spaces over public transports, etc... When I think we need to worry about it is when they d

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

                  To use your road analogy you can't stand on the side of the road and flash children as they go by either. Someone, somewhere, got the idea that this was going to be unfettered access. It isn't. It is a specific subset. In your home you can (and should) have an internet connection with which you can do anything. This isn't restricting free speach, you can run around yelling fire in your own home all you want.

                  • 'To use your road analogy you can't stand on the side of the road and flash children as they go by either.'

                    We are discussing content viewed privately in the home, not content viewed publicly. The only change you made to my road analogy was to make it no longer analogue to the topic at hand.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by KGIII ( 973947 ) *

                      This would be mobile, in intent, and thus not in your home from all of what I've read.

                      Again, you seem to be missing this, this is not meant to be your "internet connection." This is meant to be a tool to allow you to access certain functions while you're on the move. Not free as in speech but free as in beer. If you want free internet connectivity, without filtering or ads or the likes, you will have to go to somewhere else.*

                      Err...

                      *Somewhere else meaning I can't actually think of a country that gives out fr

        • >>>First of all, all of those things are already censored on cable.

          False. The word "censorship" means "blocked by government restriction" but that is not the case. Some cable channels have made a conscience decision to remove content that might offend their customers. Others (FX, Spike, HBO) have decided not to. In both these cases, the decision was a private one not a government one.

  • 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)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Sunday October 12, 2008 @11:42AM (#25345981)
    Quote: "... content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children."

    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.
    • 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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 )
        "Wow! You sound like you work for tha ACLU."

        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
        • You've obviously not lived outside the US to see the other side of the coin. I'm American and live in America. I've also lived in Asia and Africa. I can see what a cmplete lack of moral standards and no censorship leads to. Leave America for a while and tell me what you like better. You have no idea what you are wishing for. That's a fact.
          • "You've obviously not lived outside the US to see the other side of the coin. I'm American and live in America. I've also lived in Asia and Africa. I can see what a cmplete lack of moral standards and no censorship leads to. Leave America for a while and tell me what you like better. You have no idea what you are wishing for. That's a fact."

            You completely missed the point of what I was saying. Moral standards DO NOT come from national governments! Not only would that be inappropriate (and intolerable her
            • Your obvious anger does nothing to prove your point. I know a lot more about us than you think. Your statement is correct. People set the standards and government enforces it. The general morals of the people become the general laws that then protect them. That I think is what you are missing. People don't make laws. The government is representing the people and doing what their feel their constituents want. Unfortunately for you, in OUR country today, the law makers sense that more people agree with
              • First, you were wrong about my "obvious anger", since I am not angry at all. I have strong opinions, but do not confuse those with anger. That would be a big mistake.

                Second, you are still missing my point. Our government CAN'T even make the laws you would wish on us, because they are unconstitutional! Further, if the lawmakers "sense" that more people agree with you, then we are in for serious trouble, because that means the downfall of our constitution. (However, I am not really concerned about that, be
  • That mobile porn surfing would be verboten.

    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.

  • Content filters? *Auctions*?

    I thought the whole point of this white space thing was to have more *unregulated* spectrum?!?!

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close