backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by AlphaVirus.. on Apr 25 at 1:51 PM


  (Source: Rockstar Games)
Lawmaker calls for free, family-friendly wireless internet access open to the public; another auction required

With the internet littered with foul, explicit material, parents worry more and more about their children finding out what the internet fully has to offer. The solution, proposed by Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), is to open up spectrum.

Eshoo proposed a new act on Monday, dubbed the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act, instructing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to auction off 2155-2175MHz band of spectrum.

The winner of the auction of is required to use the spectrum to create free, nationwide wireless internet service that blocks all pornographic websites. It would be a service targeted directly towards families.  Eshoo hopes the auctioning of the spectrum would attract types of national broadband service providers.

"The cost of broadband service is a barrier for too many families who want broadband, with more than 100 million Americans without broadband at home," Eshoo said. "The results of the 700 MHz auction disappointed many of us who hoped that a new entrant would emerge. 70% of the spectrum auctioned went to only two carriers. While the auction required under this legislation is open to anyone, it is my hope that the bold conditions of requiring free, family friendly service will encourage the entry of a new kind of national broadband service provider."

The two carriers Eshoo speaks of are Verizon and AT&T, already top-tier broadband carriers in the U.S.

The question is whether other service providers will take to this new plan. One company has already stepped up, adopting the idea years ago. M2Z Networks offered to pick up white space in order to provide free, family-friendly public wireless internet. It was turned down in 2006, but with Eshoo reigniting the fire, M2Z may very well get it wants. Since the space will be auctioned, the network company will have to put up quite a mean fight first.

If the act is passed, the winner of the auction would have ten years to provide coverage to at least 95% of the U.S. No information has been released concerning possibly auction dates.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I see a rash of tinyurls
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/22/2008 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 5
Okay either that or some other "work around". Blocking attempts seem so silly to me. What is this China?? And in all honesty porn sites are probably less damaging to children these days than myspace/facebook/aim/blogs etc. Lets face it-- if you let your kids wantonly explore the dark recesses of the internet unsupervised (dateline nbc anyone?), you're a pretty crappy parent, and you're kids are pretty screwed offline or not. A filter is not going to give children what they really need-- a parent with interest and parenting skills.

Sheesh silly censors.




RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 3:27:41 PM , Rating: 5
Hell you can walk into any book store if you want porn. Ever seen some of those books in the relationship aisle? Many show full nude shots, in detail, of sexual positions and even tips on chicks sucking d*** and how to enjoy anal (Sorry me and the gf were in there last night laughing at some of the topics of the books. Her idea.).

Your local Barnes & Noble offers free uncensored access far easier than the internet. And for free. Hell you even get some education into the subject if you want. Now to go buy that leather whip and some handcuffs...


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By JoshuaBuss on 4/22/2008 3:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Man, you're so right.. I'm also surprised by what you can find in an average innocent bookstore.

For the curious developing child, it's a landmine of pornography and explicit instruction on how to enjoy oneself sexually...

and as someone else mentioned, they'll have to block wikipedia.. it's chock-full of adult material too.


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By Ryanman on 4/23/2008 3:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
pff. As a "curious, developing child" I wish I had received more explicit instruction on how to use a condom and enjoy myself with the GF instead of moralizing speeches from my sex ed teacher.
There's no way for me to prove it of course... but curiosity DID kill the kat. Maybe less censorship is the better way to go, considering how hard it is to control like you and Fit said. You can block the internet, but you can't put blinders on kids.

Although I have seen a couple on leashes : /


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 3:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but how many 7 year kids are going to go into a bookstore and search that out. By contrast, a 7 year old can easily do a google image search in about 2 seconds on the home computer. Nude shots are no big deal, I could care less if my kids saw that, but some of the other stuff...


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 3:59:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
but some of the other stuff...


Mexican midgets getting banged by a dog while sucking off a donkey?


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By EntreHoras on 4/22/2008 4:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
Come on!!

How can I get that image out of my head now??


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 4:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Go watch normal porn.


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By ImSpartacus on 4/22/2008 6:35:25 PM , Rating: 3
Oh damn it, it's blacked!


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By Some1ne on 4/22/2008 5:17:00 PM , Rating: 5
"And when the woman has four penises in her at the same time, then stands over the men and pees on them, is that part of being in love too? Five midgets, spanking a man...covered in Thousand Island dressing. Is that making love?"


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By Crassus on 4/22/2008 9:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how much you're into Thousand Island dressing. I'd prefer French ;)


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By timmiser on 4/23/2008 1:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
That is what I would call, "Advanced love making".


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By Omega215D on 4/23/2008 4:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
"Advanced Love Making" would be the Kama Sutra... which is available in many stores =D


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By TomCorelis on 4/22/2008 4:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
What about the romance novel section? Some of those books should require an ID to purchase... but they don't. And to think us dudes have to sheepishly peek behind black covers while our wives and girlfriends freely read the romance section.

Hell, why don't we just card people for Song of Songs in the Bible too?


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By Ringold on 4/22/2008 8:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
If no one else dares defend cesnorship of porn.. I guess I will, in this instance.

Am I the only one that thought it might not be a bad business idea to help be able to afford a low-cost service when such a large portion of bandwidth gets consumed by porn? It could be a possible cost-saving measure.

The constitutional issue I don't see if private enterprise is providing it, though I can understand the fear.


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By BarkHumbug on 4/23/2008 5:33:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
when such a large portion of bandwidth gets consumed by porn?


Do you have proof of this or is it an assumption? I thought it was consumed by illegal P2P downloads as proclaimed by others?

It seems the "large portion of bandwidth"-card is played quite often when it comes to defending throttling/banning/etc of "frowned-upon" internet traffic.

Example: I don't like pictures of cute babies, it would be beneficial to ALL of the internet if they were banned as they "consume such large portion of bandwidth".


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By Ringold on 4/23/2008 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how much bandwidth is consumed exactly, but it's fairly common knowledge a huge portion of websites out there are pornographic, and I assume they are getting accessed. :)

I don't see a problem, however, throttling a low-cost service, even if they try to block P2P. We're talking about a low cost plan for the poor. I pay $45 or so for my cable connection, and for it I have vastly different expectations of service. For a low cost plan, and a more expensive one, I expect consumers to get what they pay for. Pay little, get little.


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By BarkHumbug on 4/24/2008 9:54:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's fairly common knowledge a huge portion of websites out there are pornographic, and I assume they are getting accessed. :)

Yes, but I am assuming they are accessed for a brief period of time, at least if you're young, so I still don't buy the "large portion of bandwidth" argument. If the aim was to target large bandwidth-consumers just ban P2P, or streaming media services for that matter.

quote:
I pay $45 or so for my cable connection, and for it I have vastly different expectations of service.

Unless you have Comcast apparently, then you don't know what to expect. ;)

quote:
I expect consumers to get what they pay for. Pay little, get little.

Or in this case, pay nothing, get no porn.

Don't worry, I get it, it's a proposal to shelter the children from the dark side of the web. I guess they could name it "Decent Family Internet", and don't you get caught by your neighbors using anything else because we all know the only reason you pay for internet is...


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By whynot on 4/23/2008 12:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it is a bad idea for a company to provide internet access that automatically blocks porn. If the market demands it. The problem is this is not a market based solution, it is imposed on by the government in exchange for a slice of radio spectrum.


RE: I see a rash of tinyurls
By arielshai on 4/24/2008 2:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
ummmm - proxy sites duuuuuuu!


Call me crazy
By rdeegvainl on 4/22/2008 3:05:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It is my hope that the bold conditions of requiring free, family friendly service will encourage the entry of a new kind of national broadband service provider.


The bankrupt kind?




RE: Call me crazy
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 3:22:44 PM , Rating: 4
Pretty much. I mean short of making people run it through their own browser that has ads, NetZero style, they have no way of making any money. It costs money to set up towers and provide bandwidth. A $5-10 a month charge would be affordable for almost anyone. If you can't afford that, well then you probably shouldn't be wasting time on the Internet. Internet access is not a god given right or one protected by the constitution.


RE: Call me crazy
By rdeegvainl on 4/22/2008 3:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed


RE: Call me crazy
By tdawg on 4/22/2008 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 4
Not only that, but they have to pay for the rights to this 20MHz spectrum. How many companies are going to jump at that chance? Maybe just a front for money laundering, or something, could provide this service.

Internet and Technology bills need to be handled solely by those congress-people that understand the Internet and Technology, which is why we seriously need term limits in congress. If my mom were allowed to propose legislation on this type of stuff, we'd see bills trying to correct the delay between clicking the internet explorer icon and actually having an active window open. :)


RE: Call me crazy
By mcmilljb on 4/22/2008 4:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Definitely need more IT skilled people in Congress making these decisions. Maybe the can us some bigger tubes too!


RE: Call me crazy
By tdawg on 4/22/2008 7:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
You know there's a senator or two trying to figure out how wireless intertubes work and why he can't see them running through our skies.


RE: Call me crazy
By sheh on 4/22/2008 11:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Can anyone explain what was so wrong with that senator's analogy? Maybe I missed some details, but it seemed valid to me. Even the tech vernacular agrees; things like "fat pipe", etc.


RE: Call me crazy
By Drexial on 4/23/2008 11:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
I really think the first part of his speech should have been quoted more. Tubes really isn't that far off. In fact the proper term is Pipe. But the first part of his speech was classic.

"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
"

The tubes part of his analogy is about the only thing close to accurate.

Sure there is a lot going on. But that should not cause "an internet" to take 4 days to reach you. These "tubes" have a huge capacity for "material".


RE: Call me crazy
By Polynikes on 4/23/2008 12:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday].

Wow, I never heard that part of the speech. That's probably the most ignorant statement I've ever read.


RE: Call me crazy
By bigjaicher on 4/22/2008 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
People in congress that understand the internet and technology? Where? *Looks around* *sighs that it was a false sighting*


RE: Call me crazy
By Ticholo on 4/22/2008 6:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
When I read "browser that has ads" on your post, I immediately thought of XXX ads.


RE: Call me crazy
By Blight AC on 4/23/2008 8:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well.. that's not exactly true. Think of it this way. The government gives you this spectrum to provide wireless access to 95% of the nation. That's a pretty big potential market. So what do you do? Provide them Wireless at maybe 128 kbps down, but offer higher speed packages at a profit. You meet the federal requirement, and make use of that network to provide free wireless, but also have 95% of Americans available as a potential market for upgraded wireless service.

It could be a very profitable business, considering nearly all of America is your potential market.


RE: Call me crazy
By BMFPitt on 4/22/2008 3:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
So does anyone know anything about this lady? Is she pandering to morons or does she actually think that anything remotely like this is going to happen?


RE: Call me crazy
By Oregonian2 on 4/22/2008 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe next she'll have a bill that provides a program where supermarket companies can bid on government land to produce a network of grocery stores that provides free food for all (no pornographic bananas or anything like that though). Good followup idea?


RE: Call me crazy
By Durrr on 4/22/2008 7:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
She's a rep from California... need I say more? Pelosi anyone?


RE: Call me crazy
By Smartless on 4/22/2008 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 4
And the hard drive industry would suffer as well according to some Seagate CEOs.


RE: Call me crazy
By Bender 123 on 4/22/2008 4:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
They could still buy more crap, so a half win for hard drive companies.


RE: Call me crazy
By 16nm on 4/22/2008 4:19:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The bankrupt kind?


But at least it's a W.I.N. for Families!


RE: Call me crazy
By MPE on 4/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Call me crazy
By timmiser on 4/23/2008 1:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Get your mind out of the gutter, porn has nothing to do with it. The article is about someone paying for a band of spectrum, and then giving it to everybody for free. "Bankrupt" is a great analogy.


RE: Call me crazy
By Polynikes on 4/23/2008 12:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
No business in their right mind would do this, unless the "free" service was ad-laden, in which case it would probbaly be ridiculously slow. I stayed in a large house for a week at the Outer Banks in NC, and the wireless internet service they provided had a large ad banner that invaded your browser and was displayed on every page you viewed. The service was nearly unusable because of it.


Let the kids watch porn
By FS on 4/22/2008 3:19:24 PM , Rating: 1
instead of letting them find some other hobby which you might not even get to know about as a parent(joining a gang, doing drugs, or other outside activities that you might not want them to do). It's much safer for them if they don't waste the whole day on this single activity just like any other activity. Happy kids are more efficient in school and life in general compared to the suppressed kids.




RE: Let the kids watch porn
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously. I had a friend in middle school and high school who was extremely intelligent and outgoing. He was set to become a lawyer. The one problem was that his parents tried to control every aspect of his life. What happened when he got out of the nest and lived on his own? Partied too much, smoked pot, and instead of becoming a lawyer, last I heard he's putting up dry wall.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 3:57:56 PM , Rating: 4
So, do either of you have kids - no, I didn't think so.

Seriously, if I let me kids do whatever they wanted, they'd sit and play computer and gamecube for 8 hours a day. You have to take some control as a parent, do plenty of outdoor activities, get involved in sports, and actually "force" them to go outside sometimes. That's not suppression...


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 4:29:56 PM , Rating: 3
What did my post have to do with not being a parent. I didn't say you shouldn't be active in your kids lives or let them sit around and play video games all day. I did say that you shouldn't try to completely shield them from life and try to control what they do, when they do it, and where they do it all the time.

There is responsible parenting and there is trying to control every aspect of your child's life. The former is fine, the latter likely ends badly for your kid.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By rsmech on 4/22/2008 7:28:32 PM , Rating: 3
When you are a child about anytime your parents tell you no seems like they are controlling your life. You can spoil the child & their brats, you can shelter them & they rebel. As a parent you need to teach your child respect. First for the parent, then for themselves then for others. I don't think porn installs the proper type of respect.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By JS on 4/22/2008 10:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think that if they should censor anything, censor the violence. Watching people getting killed and maimed will mess up a kid's brain much more than seeing consenting adults having intercourse. But hey, it's America. Perhaps kids are different there, what do I know.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By timmiser on 4/23/2008 1:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I was thinking!


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By rsmech on 4/23/2008 10:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get the mentality today that it's better for a kid to pick up a Maxim than to play cops & robbers. I think a kid would know the difference between a play gun & a real gun more than they would understand consenting adults & intercourse, at least they should unless this explains the problem with kids today.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By mcmilljb on 4/22/2008 4:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
Your kids aren't robots. They should have some say in what they desire to do. I believe that is what he's trying to say.

Besides, I've seen what current parents are doing now, and I think they have a crappy track record. Blaming everyone else but themselves or their own kids for what they lack or can't do.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By Wererat on 4/22/2008 4:45:27 PM , Rating: 1
Huzzah, one less lawyer in the world! :)


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By fic2 on 4/22/2008 5:14:38 PM , Rating: 4
I don't really understand your example - so you are saying that he became a productive member of society instead of a lawyer because his parents were controlling?


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By AlphaVirus on 4/22/2008 5:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Use context clues.
From FitCamaro's post
quote:
I had a friend in middle school and high school who was extremely intelligent and outgoing.

Linking his intelligence with wanting to be a lawyer, but instead he is putting up plywood, which you dont need to be very smart to do.

His friend kind of wasted all of his childhood.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By Durrr on 4/22/2008 7:35:36 PM , Rating: 3
Case in point : I was intelligent and outgoing, my parents didnt clamp down on me, and now im a nuclear engineer =p


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By AmishElvis on 4/22/2008 8:17:55 PM , Rating: 1
Based on your non-use of apostrophes, haphazard capitalization, and emoticon use, I estimate that you are 14 years old.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By jeff834 on 4/23/2008 11:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
I know a lot of engineers. That's their grammar alright.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By zshift on 4/23/2008 12:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
prove it: replace all of the electromagnetic equations with just one that uses derivatives, not integrals.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By fic2 on 4/23/2008 12:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
Use context clues and freakin' get sarcasm. By the 5 rating that the posting got other people understood it. Why can't you and the "nuclear engineer"?


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By AlphaVirus on 4/25/2008 1:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am sorry I do not understand someone thousands of miles away typing ABC to mean sarcasm or a joke, especially in a topic that requires a little higher than 5th grade education.

The post states
quote:
so you are saying that he became a productive member of society instead of a lawyer

He says this as if lawyers are not productive members right after saying
quote:
I don't really understand your example


Once again I apologize for not taking everything as a joke.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By timmiser on 4/23/2008 1:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
You also don't need to be very smart to get the joke.


RE: Let the kids watch porn
By AlphaVirus on 4/25/2008 1:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you are implying using context clues to being very smart, perhaps you should revisit your 3rd grade teacher.


Comcast has free filtering
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 4
For those interested, Comcast has free internet porn filtering for customers, provided by McAfee. You can also limit internet time. I have it on my sons' computers (ages 9 and 7) and it works well. I have it installed on 4 computers - it provides antivirus, spyware, and firewall protection as well (all optional). It is very unobtrusive, and doesn't appear to slow down performance any worse than Kaspersky, AntiVir, or AVG.

That "bad parenting" talk is bullcrap - you can't watch your kids all the time - they get home from school at 3:00, and I get home at 6:00, and with 3 kids the wife can't be around them all at once. I really don't care if they see naked people all that much, but there is too much hard-core stuff out there. Way more explicit that the occasional Playboy I would look at when I was 9 years old.




RE: Comcast has free filtering
By omnicronx on 4/22/2008 3:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For those interested, Comcast has free internet porn filtering for customers, provided by McAfee. You can also limit internet time.
I know times have changed, but even as a kid, with my computer locked down to the max by my parents, I was still able to find what I was looking for ;)
Kids are not as stupid as you think, McAfee or Norton is not going to stop someone with more than a little computer knowledge.

The best defense to stop your kids from watching porn? Don't let them have their own computer! Until your children reach a certain age, there is no reason why they need a computer in their room. Keeping your family computer in a common area will reduce most of their unauthorized activity. You don't always have to be watching your kids, but as long as you have a presense in the room, they will be much less likely to be searching for porn.


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 4:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they'll be able to find all the porn they need, eventually. There not that smart yet...Their computers are not in their room, but in a common room in the basement. Giving them their own computers may not have been a great idea, as (none of their friends have their own computers), so you may be right about that. Too late to turn back on that one now, though... It is good for family LAN gaming, though.


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By BMFPitt on 4/22/2008 4:58:23 PM , Rating: 4
When I have kids, I'll go with something like they do at work. A logon banner that says:
quote:
This computer system is the property of your dad. All activities are subject to monitoring, and inappropriate use will result in grounding and loss of access.


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 5:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously looked into some commercial products like that.. pretty darn expensive though.

My kids get to use their computers for 2 hours a day - no way I'm going to supervise them that whole time...


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By Zoomer on 4/22/2008 7:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Random sample.

By the way, has the avaliability of such content been explained yet? That's probably something to be done before letting any child on the net.


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By timmiser on 4/23/2008 1:25:12 AM , Rating: 4
If my kids went to the trouble of figuring out how to bypass a filtering program by a major software security company and actually pulled it off without me knowing... I would be proud of them! If the viewing of porn motivates my teen to learn computer code and programming, bring it on hot and heavy!


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By boogle on 4/23/2008 5:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, relying on 'consumer' kit is a waste of time, any sufficiently intelligent child can bypass it easily, especially if the parent setting it up gives the child an admin (default Windows) account.

I set up an external firewall (Astaro) which has a pretty fancy content filtering system. First you can block various categories, as you would expect; secondly you can automatically block anything not-categorised. Then you can block anything not going through the proxy, so you can't bypass by using a proxy or any other method.

Gee, I sound like an advert. But seriously, I've found consumer kit (especially from Norton / McAffee) to be horribly inadequate. Anything outside of the computer system is significantly harder to compromise.


RE: Comcast has free filtering
By AlphaVirus on 4/22/2008 6:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on how old and knowledgable your kids are, you can setup Internet Explorer to just block certain sites.
1. Create a computer account for Kids
2. Set security settings in IE to only display under R rated material
3. Adjust Vista/XP settings so they cant download anything without your permission

It takes about the same steps as setting up Mcafee but it is an added precaution that could help your situation.


Several Concerns
By creathir on 4/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Several Concerns
By Screwballl on 4/22/2008 4:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
If someone lets you use a car that they own and tell you to not do something with it like crash through a fence... would you still do it based on the same premises? It is not your right to do what you want with something that does not belong to you.
Besides, the government is auctioning off a specific bandwidth level for another company to be required to filter.

The real problem comes in with WHAT is to be filtered out. The Miss USA bikini pictures may be softcore porn to one person but not another. Myspace is teaming with evil and immorality yet will that be filtered out?

There are too many "what ifs" right now to really have any answers.


RE: Several Concerns
By creathir on 4/22/2008 4:51:01 PM , Rating: 1
Your premise is flawed.

The government does not "own" the airwaves... we do.

Making a specific topic illegal is a SPECIFIC violation of the first amendment. Who is to stop them from making critisisms of them from being illegal (*cough* campain finance reform *cough*)

- Creathir


RE: Several Concerns
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 5:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it any different than a business blocking their employees from surfing porn...


RE: Several Concerns
By creathir on 4/22/2008 5:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Because a business is a private entity. The federal government, is the most public of public entities.

Government is not allowed to do this, as specified by the first amendment.

A private company can because it is not regulated by the constraints of the constitution. The constitution is the set of rules that the Federal Government must follow. That is it.

- Creathir


RE: Several Concerns
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 5:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it any different from banning hard-core porn from public TV? (or are you for that too?)


RE: Several Concerns
By AlphaVirus on 4/22/2008 5:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Public TV is usually "sponsored" tv. Also Public tv is ran by private companies such as Walt Disney (ABC, Disney Channel), Viacom (MTV, VH1, BET), etc. They control what is shown or not shown, and what appeals to certain demographics.

They will not show porn at 4pm (when all kids get home) on the Disney Channel, they would get blasted so fast. They are in business to earn money and show what majority of people watch and will be most accepted.

There are however your porn stations that are easily accessible if you pay a premium per month to your cable company.


RE: Several Concerns
By TomZ on 4/22/2008 5:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY.

This proposal has no hope of becoming law, because it is clearly unconstitutional. It's just a PR stunt on the part of the politicians involved (shame on them).


RE: Several Concerns
By Screwballl on 4/22/2008 7:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
The government does NOT own the airwaves... but they license the right to use them and TV/radio stations have the right to broadcast their signal over these waves.
By auctioning them off, the government is selling the airwaves to be used and owned by and for a private company, not the public... and being under the ownership of a private company, they can block or allow whatever they want.
You own your radio but do you own the radio station that plays the music or the airwaves that come to your car? The stations are owned by private entities and have the right to play what they want within FCC rules, same with TV stations. Premium stations charge more for adult content and same can be said about stuff like Howard Stern going to Sirius satellite radio.

No one OWNS the airwaves, they have the right to transmit or receive based on the rules at the FCC. These rules will pretty much disappear once a private company gets their hands all over it.


RE: Several Concerns
By Starcub on 4/23/2008 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government does not "own" the airwaves... we do.

The implication you are making is that there is a difference between the interests of "we" and the interests of the government. However, our government was formed on the premise that "we the people" was considered to be all inclusive. This means that families, as a fundamental component of the constitution of our nation, should have at least as much a right to government assets as any other corporate body.


Define Pornography ...
By Screwuhippie on 4/22/2008 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
This will be a lovely battle with the free speech folks ... what is pornogrpahy? After that what else won't be allowed? how will you filter it? This is just a can of worms ready to explode.

I can tell you the best kind of pornography filter. Effective Parenting! Don't let your kids browse unsupervised. Its a crazy concept but ... it works ... i've seen my parents do it!




RE: Define Pornography ...
By stepone on 4/22/2008 4:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Japanese girls puking in each others mouths > interracial gangbang > shemales > beastiality > brazilian fart fetish porn..."

There was a ghost, this is all ecto plasm!


RE: Define Pornography ...
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2008 4:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL! I was thinking of that episode. It was great.


RE: Define Pornography ...
By kmmatney on 4/22/2008 5:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
There doesn't seem to be too many issues with "what is pornography" on public TV. I don't see why this is any different. There may be some fine tuning involved about what to filter, but the obvious stuff will be easy enough.


Its about balance that's all it is...
By callmeroy on 4/22/2008 4:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
The topic about safeguarding what our kids see on the Internet not to mention listen to, drugs, etc. its all about balance - its so simple to me I'm amazed how huge an issue it is.

First you have lead by example from day one. If your kids see you doing "wrong" or "bad" things (for lack of better wording) then you are teaching them already and you don't even know it - that it doesnt' really "matter" that much if you do "this" or "that" -- its no big deal.

Second, be involved with your kids - both in conversations and also have fun with your kids - go to sports games, camping, movies, whatever it is that you do for good clean fun ...that should be common sense.

Third, set the rules and make it very clear what you approve and don't approve of from an early age -- "Happy Birthday here is your first computer with Internet -- these are the rules in my house of using this thing" (obviously you say it a lot more slick than that but you get my point)...

Fourth -- let them live and learn, do NOT smother them - there's a point we can not control what our kids do or don't do and you have to just have to hope and pray (if you get offended at that I don't care I do believe in God) that you did your best and gave them a good foundation. Be there to guide and correct them of course -- but you absolutely can not smother them or spy on them every waking hour.

That's all there is to it.




RE: Its about balance that's all it is...
By Ananke on 4/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Its about balance that's all it is...
By Ringold on 4/22/2008 8:00:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The truth is that Sweden, Finland, and others have subsidized broadband, and their economies developed way faster than the American. Also, the literacy and knowledge rate is so much better than American, so it is not even comparable anymore.


Correlation doesn't mean causation; more telecommuting would be nice, but I don't see how that could explain their growth.

As for them no longer being comparable, don't know why you say that. If we kicked out all our minorities and uneducated immigrants, we'd probably have excellent literacy and "knowledge rates" -- whatever the hell "knowledge rates" are. In terms of GDP-PPP, Sweden is $9,351 lower, and Norway is $7,192 higher; do you dare bother to see how much lower those two would be if one were to strip out their vast oil revenues relative to their tiny populations? Even left-leaning wikipedia suggests it affords the things you brag about due to huge endowments of natural resources.

Luxembourg is way, way up there, but hey, if we split New York City off and make it it's own tiny finance-based little country, it'd be eye-popping too.

quote:
Many european countries have been through this pollemics and that's why Europeans seems to think differently than us.


Obviously. Wonder if that has anything to do with why our aggregate economic statistics look better than theirs, such as unemployment and even many of their budget deficits, even though we're skating through the bottom of what may be a recession and they're still near the peak of their economic cycle? :P

Where do you get your Kool-Aid? You've got some strong stuff there.


By Godiva on 4/23/2008 3:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for them no longer being comparable, don't know why you say that. If we kicked out all our minorities and uneducated immigrants, we'd probably have excellent literacy

So that would explain George Bush...How bout kicking out all our smart intelligent citizens who let them in the first place! O Yeah!


and pay for this how
By tastyratz on 4/22/2008 3:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Netzero which was famous because they offered the net... for zero has shied away from this for good business reasons.
high speed by who's high speed? the governments official definition of high speed?
How do they intend to support this free internet? Advertising revenue? Porn popups?

Free censored cluttered internet failure now at twice the speed of the 80s!

What can something like this existing mean for net neutrality too? When you get to free you probably really DO need to forfeit neutrality. I don't know if I like that foot in the door anywhere




RE: and pay for this how
By Starcub on 4/23/2008 2:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do they intend to support this free internet? Advertising revenue? Porn popups?

Via the open source model most likely. People who view this as a valuable service would send in voluntary contributions to subsidize the upkeep -- very similar to how Netzero got started.
quote:
What can something like this existing mean for net neutrality too? When you get to free you probably really DO need to forfeit neutrality.

Well yes, that's the idea. I imagine there would be some FCC oversite to insure that the bandwidth is managed in a manner consistent with the family friendly principles it's intended for. However, the family oriented service provider would establish additional terms of service to include acceptable content just like any other service provider.

A security and registration system would have to be implemented in order to keep bottom line motivated intrests from clogging up the bandwidth simply because they want it to fail.


I work for a ISP that already does this
By Screwballl on 4/22/2008 4:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"...will encourage the entry of a new kind of national broadband service provider."


This is not new, there is an ISP that does this and they already have DSL service available through much of the US and Canada. The software is server based (proxy or DNS) with customers or company's connection and the content is filtered out.

check out www.afo.net

Its not free, but it is much better than what the government can do.




By Screwballl on 4/22/2008 4:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
title correction, I don't work for a ISP... correct title should be "I KNOW of an ISP that already does this".

and its not some half-cocked "family" filter like most companies out there, it actually protects against the bas stuff like Myspace and millions of bad websites.


" California Democrat "
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2008 6:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
The term California Democrat is almost synonymous with idiotic ideas and policies. Here comes another gem.

quote:
"The cost of broadband service is a barrier for too many families who want broadband, with more than 100 million Americans without broadband at home,"


Families that obviously own two or more computers, since we're concerned about what little Timmy is viewing on his very own private desktop PC/laptop, can't afford broadband ? Sure, I'll go along with that. But have no fear !!! California Democrat to the rescue !!!

quote:
The results of the 700 MHz auction disappointed many of us who hoped that a new entrant would emerge. 70% of the spectrum auctioned went to only two carriers. While the auction required under this legislation is open to anyone, it is my hope that the bold conditions of requiring free, family friendly service will encourage the entry of a new kind of national broadband service provider.


You just answered your own problem dummy ! The reason the 700Mhz auction was so " disappointing " is that there is no profit in it ! Nobody wants it.

Free Porno Free wireless broadband. Yeah that sounds like a cash cow right ? Heres whats going to end up happening, because it WILL start failing, the government is going to have to substidise it. Because thats what happens to EVERY social engineering California Democrat idiot idea. It bleeds money. So now the good taxpayers will not only end up funding other peoples health care, wellfare, dental care, college tuitions, abortions, etc etc you name it ! But now we get to fund your non porno free wireless too ! Your welcome deadbeats !

The key issues here is that good old California Democrat knows you can't raise your kids. Or manage your own money for that matter. No. Your a stupid wandering moron who can only be saved by the power of federal mandates ! Someone has to raise and protect your children, and it sure as hell can't be you. And when your child screws up and watches porn, or shoots up a school, well thats ok. Because the problem wasn't you dear parent, oh no, it was video games, guns, and violence on TV. And lets not leave out Internet Porn !




RE: " California Democrat "
By AmishElvis on 4/22/2008 8:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.


think about it...
By judasmachine on 4/22/2008 3:08:15 PM , Rating: 1
How fast would the web be without the porn traffic!

Not that I'd ever want to see a web w/o porn.




RE: think about it...
By Screwballl on 4/23/2008 12:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think the REAL question is, how fast could it be without SPAM... rather than try to find a way to limit P2P and porn, find a way to stop spammers and everyones internet speed will at least triple.


Well...
By Shadow Conception on 4/22/2008 3:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Off to Wikipedia for my porn fixation!




Ulitmate porn service
By djc208 on 4/22/2008 7:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well it says they're required to roll out a free internet serivce with no porn, but I don't know that it would limit them to that. This could be do-able with the right business plan. You could offer a "subscription" fee to access the "rest" of the internet for those that want their free internet and their porn too.

More seriously I could only see two ways this would work. Some money will be made from selling the hardware to access this spectrum. The rest would be either by supporting it with adds as others have said, or by limiting access to "partners" who pay for the right to be availble thorugh the network.

So Amazon would pay to be allowed through the firewall along with other companies to subsidize the cost and essentially "force" customers their way.




"Porn less"
By danrien on 4/22/2008 10:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody's gonna use it.




Why not just use the XXX domain?
By Proteusza on 4/23/2008 12:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I have never understood is why the conservatives opposed the creation of the .xxx domain. I mean, it makes adult content blocking so much easier - any sites ending in .xxx get blocked. Simple.

I'm well aware that not all adult sites will be above board and choose to switch a .xxx domain, but it would vastly simplify censorship.

Why was it not implemented again?




By acme420 on 4/23/2008 2:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
The bill from what i gathered by ACTUALLY READING the news post. Is that whoever wins this range of frequencies must ALSO set up a FREE wireless service for the entire country. which i assume mostly entails whatever area they cover with their service.

How this translates into they can only use the range of frequencies they win to provide free internet i dont know. i guess you all just cant read, or just dont understand what you are reading. typical.




The End result
By ejhill on 4/23/2008 5:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
I see a much darker side because, if she’s successful, here’s how this whole thing shakes out:

Because such a scheme could never be profitable there will be no takers for Eshoo’s offer. But the need will still be there. So Eshoo will get the Federal Government to heed the call. And as “free” broadband rolls out across the fruited plain consumers will drop their paid ISP’s plans. As their volume drops, private providers will have to increase prices dramatically forcing even more customers into the arms of the “free” government controlled service. Before you know it the Feds will control 90% or more of the public’s access to the internet.

Then it will happen. There will be an incident of violence or bigotry that will be traced back to some blogger or talk show host. “We have these filters in place,” someone will say, “We need to use them more effectively.” And then it will begin. Like China, America will have a filtered internet, where political discussion will be squashed in the name of tolerance and greater public good.

And what will be the use of having “free” internet if the internet isn’t FREE ?

ejhill1925.wordpress.com




pornless internet?!??!?
By poohbear on 4/23/2008 8:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
why would anyone in their right mind want pornless internet? heck, i thought anandtech was a dirty fetish porn site wherein women got it on w/ hardware, imagine my disappointment in finding out it's purely a hardware site. oh well, times a changing i guess.




By phxfreddy on 4/23/2008 9:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
The net was better before the low enders got on it. Now she wants to allow every last welfare recipient a stipend to aid in their education how to pull off an internet fraud.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith











botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki