backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 39 comment(s) - last by TETRONG.. on Jun 2 at 5:52 PM
FCC says users of free service would be blocked from viewing porn

In the quest to get more Americans online, the FCC is considering a plan that would require the winner of a new wireless frequency auction to give away wireless internet services for free to people who can’t afford it or are simply too cheap to buy their own internet access.

The FCC hasn’t thought the plan out completely at this point and ironically it shot down a proposal from a firm called M2Z Networks that was very similar. M2Z Networks proposed, according to The Wall Street Journal, that the FCC give it a national 25MHz chunk of wireless spectrum. In return for the grant of wireless spectrum M2Z offered to give the FCC 5% of its revenue for use of the airwaves and to provide free wireless internet service.

The main difference in the FCC’s stated plan is that the FCC wants to auction off the airwaves to the highest bidder with the stipulation that the winner must provide free service to Americans. The catch is that despite all of the money the FCC raised in the recent wireless spectrum auction, bidders showed their disapproval for the block of airwaves on auction that carried the stipulation that it must be shared with police and firefighters by not bidding on it.

The proposed rules on the auction by the FCC would stipulate that the winner of the auction would have to have its wireless network up and offer free internet access to 50% of the American population within four years and the service had to be offered to 95% of the population within ten years.

The FCC also proposes to block users of the free wireless internet access from viewing pornographic or obscene materials. Exactly how the FCC plans to determine what is obscene is unknown. After all, one man’s obscene is another man’s copy of GTA IV.

This isn't the first time no charge porn-free internet has been considered by the U.S. Government. A bill proposing free wireless Internet similar to what the FCC is now considering was reported in April 2008.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Whatever
By mcnabney on 5/30/2008 2:49:18 PM , Rating: 1
The level of stupid at the FCC is getting out of control.

In what country do businesses line-up to pay for socialism?




RE: Whatever
By SandmanWN on 5/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Whatever
By Alexstarfire on 5/30/2008 3:05:10 PM , Rating: 4
Ummmm, they are talking about a new auction, not the one they already did. Or did I miss something?

Anyways, why would someone pay for the spectrum to give away some thing for free. Sounds like a lose-lose situation for whoever buys the space. Though, they could just have everyone use a proprietary piece of software that is chock, or is it chalk?, full of ads.


RE: Whatever
By mcnabney on 5/30/2008 3:08:24 PM , Rating: 4
Correct. This idiotic idea is being proposed for the new D band auction. And it makes sense. If nobody wanted it if you had to share with emergency services than it should be much more liked when you have to give it to the public for free and also snoop on all the traffic to make sure that nobody looks at a saggy boob or something.


RE: Whatever
By SandmanWN on 5/30/2008 3:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
yep you are correct, I missed the "new" auction part. oh well.


RE: Whatever
By theapparition on 5/30/2008 3:52:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Anyways, why would someone pay for the spectrum to give away some thing for free.

Why would Google spend billions on server farms, acquistions, and developers for applications that they all give away for free???

Why are you able to get network television broadcast over the air for free??

Oh yeah, that's right, they sell advertisements. And make plenty of money doing it, too.


RE: Whatever
By Ananke on 5/30/2008 4:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
:) I guess Google won, at the end. They don't need to spent money for license, and they will have customers from all other wireless networks, whose phones are running Google on Android :). I can't believe how US consumers benefit from lobbying, it hasn't happen before :)
But I see how I drop my cable TV, cable internet, cell phone plans, and lan-line plan, tha cost me like 200 now; and just use one cheap or free wireless broadband instead. Maybe dish TV also? For like 20-30 bucks?


RE: Whatever
By mcnabney on 5/30/2008 5:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Verizon bought the C-block spectrum and they are allowing open device access. So you will be buying your access from Verizon, on their about to be deployed LTE 4G network.
So you will have America's most beloved web apps running on the America's most reliable network.
I guess when Android with webcam roles out the adds will say "Can you see me now? Good."


RE: Whatever
By Screwballl on 5/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Whatever
By TETRONG on 5/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Whatever
By Screwballl on 5/31/2008 10:16:48 AM , Rating: 1
So you're a part of that nasty cult that says it is ok for a 40 year old to have sex with a 12 year old?

Also in some states, yes it is illegal for persons under the age of 18 to engage in sexual relations of any type, and in all states, there is some sort of law that prevents 18 and older persons to engage in sexual activity with another that is under 18. For some it cannot be more than 1 year, others it is max 2 years difference.

So under your perceived freedom this should be allowed? Wow you need to be locked up in the looney bin.


RE: Whatever
By TETRONG on 5/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Whatever
By FITCamaro on 5/31/2008 11:41:35 AM , Rating: 3
Just because you lived a f*cked up life, doesn't make you right.

Yes kids are having sex prior to age 18. But that doesn't mean its either legal or a good thing.

As far as your age 6 claim, other than being molested (regardless of whether you recognize it as such), I doubt it.


RE: Whatever
By TETRONG on 5/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: Whatever
By Motoman on 5/31/2008 7:13:33 PM , Rating: 1
...you're a fucking loony. "True American" my ass...you're the sorriest example of just how mind-bendingly moronic a human is capable of being. Please go away now and bother someone else with your morony.


RE: Whatever
By FITCamaro on 5/30/2008 6:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Taxpayer dollars aren't going to this period. This is an auction by the FCC to private companies for a section of the wireless spectrum. The stipulations of the auction are that free access must be provided and viewing explicit material will not be allowed.


RE: Whatever
By Alexstarfire on 5/31/2008 7:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's dumb, but since it's for free I guess you can't complain too much. I'd be curious to know how they know you're viewing "explicit" material. I'm also curious to know what qualifies as "explicit."


RE: Whatever
By Screwballl on 5/31/2008 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxpayer dollars aren't going to this period.


What? How else will a private business be able to maintain a nationwide network of free internet access? Advertising? Not likely. The FCC as a government entity will auction off the signal for "public sector" usage handled by a private company but the only way to maintain this is by supplementing with taxpayer money to keep it alive. How else will the thousands of network and support employees be able to keep this network going? Would YOU want to volunteer for this job and not get paid?
Google and other search engines are pretty much advertising agencies but they do not offer internet connections. It is the connection and maintenance that costs money, not the usage.


RE: Whatever
By FITCamaro on 5/31/2008 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Hence why no one is bidding for the spectrum.


Celebritarianism
By chmilz on 5/30/2008 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Exactly how the FCC plans to determine what is obscene is unknown. After all, one man’s obscene is another man’s copy of GTA IV.


Can we filter out crap about celebrities and keep the porn? The former is far more destructive to society than the latter.




RE: Celebritarianism
By Motoman on 5/30/2008 2:46:47 PM , Rating: 1
If I had the power I would up-rate that comment to infinity.

Porn makes the world go 'round. Get used to it.

You want to make the intarweb obscenity-free? Delete all references to stupid celbrities, politics, religion, UFOs, moon-hoax conspirators, acupuncture, aromatherapy, censorship (oops), so on and so forth. Then we'll be good.


RE: Celebritarianism
By TETRONG on 5/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Celebritarianism
By Motoman on 5/30/2008 6:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
K...not sure if you're serious or not.

In case you are...I WIN TEH INTARWEB FOR FINDING THE STUPIDIST IDIOT IN TEH WORLD!

...there's a prize for that, right?

...probably provided by his aliens.


RE: Celebritarianism
By TETRONG on 5/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Celebritarianism
By Motoman on 5/30/2008 8:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
...you want to believe that you've been visited by aliens/UFOs, then go right ahead.

I'd, uh, keep that to myself though, if I was you.

OMFG. And some people think the US education system works just fine...


RE: Celebritarianism
By derwin on 5/31/2008 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, did you notice he threatened to excommunicate you? Watch out.

In all fairness my friend, there is nothing wrong with being visited by aliens, the problem I have is all the people who have never seen any aliens at all, getting all up in arms because they read crap like that on the internet, and have never even experienced it for themselves. Its the same thing religion does to people. Personal spirituality is fine, but mass-hysteria-religion is troubling to say the least.


RE: Celebritarianism
By TETRONG on 5/31/2008 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would craft a thoughtful reply, but it's clear that you are content in your own hell, and I'm not going to risk drowning to save you.


RE: Celebritarianism
By exanimas on 5/31/2008 11:12:09 PM , Rating: 4
Does DailyTech have IP ban?


RE: Celebritarianism
By MamiyaOtaru on 6/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Celebritarianism
By TETRONG on 6/2/2008 5:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Celebritarianism
By MrBlastman on 5/30/2008 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
Does this mean that since I find Jack Thompson offensive I can have the FCC require all of content related to him be blocked for the free users?

Please say it is so!


RE: Celebritarianism
By jadeskye on 5/30/2008 3:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was under the understanding that 70% of the internet was porn and pretty much funded it.

am i wrong? O_o


RE: Celebritarianism
By bodar on 5/30/2008 3:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. I will never understand why so many people are obsessed with who's boinking who, who's in rehab, and who's sponsoring a clothing line. Basically, 95% of E!'s programming. Especially when it's some of these G-list, invented celebutards -- I'm lookin at YOU, cast of The Hills!


And they seriously wondered..
By Reclaimer77 on 5/30/2008 4:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
They seriously wondered why the auction went poorly last month ? Its because investors knew the feds would pull crap like this.




Lame
By somsok on 5/30/2008 5:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
never mind all the other illegal stuff you can find and do on the internet, Lets Block Porn! geez




"Porn-free internet"
By tallguywithglasseson on 5/31/2008 3:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
They have to mean "free porn internet", right? What the hell is the point of the internet without porn? :p




What will thy call it?
By Manch on 6/1/2008 4:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking:

PIS --> Public Internet Service

any other suggestions?




well
By LumbergTech on 6/1/2008 11:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
the problem to me isnt that porn is being blocked

the problem IS how do you determine what is pornographic and what is educational etc?

will ideas etc be considered pornographic?

will political sites that some might not like be blocked as well?




bummer
By sirius4k on 6/2/2008 3:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FCC says users of free service would be blocked from viewing porn
Aaaawwwweeee ='(




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki