Slashdot Mirror
FCC Pitches Free, Bowdlerized Wireless Internet Access
Aidtopia writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing auctioning off an unused part of the 25 MHz spectrum on the condition that the winner provide free wireless Internet access. The proposal sets coverage targets that ramp up to 95% of the population within 10 years. The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content." I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
Add anything that is not "politically correct", and it'll be filtered.
Thus, about 99% of all media.
s/obscene/dissenting/g
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Tipper Gore and Jack Thompson
"3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
so no Bible then? tempting....
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It was probably done at the behest of Big Networking, so that whenever people get uppity about the fact that the companies are not exactly dumping a whole lot of capital into improving and/or extending their services, they can point to this and say "just use that!", safe in the knowledge that nobody will want to use a slow, ad-filled, censored internet connection.
I know you are trying to be funny or whatever but even if you don't think the Bible contains a single fact, the fact remains it is a book of stories. More then that they are some of the oldest stories we might consider part of modern Western Civilization. They more or less lay out what society is as we understand it today. Christian or otherwise to sugest the Bible does not represent artistic, political, and scientific value(even if only the social and political science aspects are verifable) makes you appear pretty stupid.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
People that don't know better will be like: "Hey filtered is better than nothing. Can't bitch about free."
The christians will say: "Not only is this a great product, but free as well. Plus they will filter out all the smut... HOW WONDERFUL!"
1% will say: "Fuck that. Don't tell me how to surf."
And the rest don't give a shit. I give this a better than average chance of going through.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
Why is everybody confused? The FCC already has legally definitions for "obscene" and clearly, since they're the ones auctioning off the frequency block, they'd be the ones deciding the definition of obscene. If you're still confused, here's how it works: Watch TV. Whatever they can do there, they can do on an obscenity-filtered wireless service. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html
I know the FCC does some strange things at times. And I know that the censorship isn't exactly what I'd pick for my regular internet connection.
However, I know that when I'm working from my laptop while waiting at the mechanic, it'd be nice to have ANY cheap / free internet connection. $60/month for unlimited internet through the cellphone networks is too expensive for my needs...
If the ISP would only have to filter Miller-test-obscene material, I guess you can infer that essentially nothing actually meets that standard from the number of "hardcore" pornographic publications that are legally sold in the U.S. On the other hand, the Internet could probably shock us all with its ability to exceed the limits of depravity found even in commercial pornography.
The real question is how anyone could effectively "filter out" obscene material digitally. Most software filters for identifying any kind of human-readable material (copyright filters, etc.) are simplistic junk that return too many false positives and are easy to circumvent. The definitions for obscenity are so subjective that even humans have a tough time applying them.
Where is compassion without christianity??? WHAT? You just made the most ignorant, hipocrytical, bigoted comment possible. You just stated that nobody, save a christian, can feel compassion.
You also went on to say that nobody would help anyone out unless they are a god-fearing person. This is the problem I have with christians: You all think that the world is evil if it is not on your side. You cannot rationally take a position on a subject becuase you believe that all that do not agree with you are evil. Christians also feel it is their need to spread this virus to others. You feel that if someone does not think like you, they must be converted, or face eternal damnation. You toil to save their soul. You pray that they see the light. And you pass laws to "guide" us to said light.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis
I cannot wait for the fall of christianity... my only fear is that it will be after I die and I will never be able to see a life without the influence of the self-righteous bigots.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
Everyone is bitching about filtering...
I'm still stuck at the technological hurdle of actually being able to _implement_ such filters in the first place, given that it's an NP-incomplete problem.
It's all well and good to scream "protect the children!" at the top of your lungs, but what technology are you proposing to identify and interdict obscene content?
-- Terry
to place restrictions on private industry
I'd agree, but to be fair, the FCC is required to mandate "decency" standards on the public airwaves, so extending that mandate/philosophy to a proposed public wireless system sounds like a reasonable argument.
The difficulty is that the internet, at least for the forseeable future, isn't at all similar to broadcast television or radio.
"I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use."
Probably the one they already use to charge violators such as Howard Stern, as well as the violators' station of origin, up to US$250K per incident. I'm not sure where it is in their regs (which I do know are online) but I recall quite clearly the sign in the studio booth at WUVT that reminded me constantly of the sword hanging over me.
What's always bothered me about the regs is the relaxation of the rules after 10 PM. When I was broadcasting, I had simultaneous netcast. After 10 PM where the station is (Blacksburg VA, eastern time) is only after 7 PM on the Left Coast (ie. pacific time). After 10 PM where? Was I simultaneously legal in Virginia but breaking the law in California?
Apply that now to on-demand, statically stored material which may or may not be infringing depending on the material and time of request. It's always before 10 PM someplace, so the owner may be liable according to the location of the requester. You can bet this is the way things would fall, because the alternative is to say 'it's AFTER 10 PM someplace', making the regs moot and removing a potential source of enforcement as well as income.
Oh yeah, and the context of the offending material matters. You can play hip hop and rap on air after 10 PM local and get away with broadcasting 2 "motherfuckers" and 5 "niggers" per minute, but try to say one of either yourself and see what it costs you. In the case of the latter, that may include body parts depending on your own color. The context of your reception can also matter, hence a "researcher" is supposed to be able to access an "obscene" web site for academic purposes without fear of reprisal. Yeah, right.
Personally I prefer Larry Flint's editorialized definition of "obscene" which puts murder and such well before sex in terms of badness. If that were used, you'd never be able to access most commercial news outlets, or much common TV or theatrical material. So sad that killing is not just accepted but expected, and fucking is outlawed.
OOPS, I think I just made it impossible for you to access this in the archives should the regulation of the proposed bandwidth go through. We'll see.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I turn on broadcast TV and radio today, and I note that I still can't hear any "bad language". I even learn that the FCC is slapping massive fines on anybody who utters such "bad language".
Failed? Really? Wouldn't that imply 'not successful'?
Miller isn't that clear. In particular, the issue of what community's standards apply to purportedly obscene material on the Internet is completely up in the air at the moment. Is it the most restrictive community on the Internet? The least restrictive? Given that community was, in the past, defined as not being national, will it become national in a newly refined Miller test? Will the Court finally say that obscene material is protected speech, if only to spare themselves the headache of having to work out a new test or returning to the ad hoc days before Miller? Who knows.
Of course I recall the funny story that before Miller came along, the Justices and their clerks would sit down with popcorn and have a 'movie day' to watch the porn that was involved in the cases that they had to judge that term. J. Black didn't attend; he felt that they were all lawful. J. Stewart (the 'I know it when I see it' guy) was basically blind at the time, and had to have his clerks tell him what was going on. The joke the clerks are reputed to have told -- behind his back, one hopes -- is that from time to time he'd announce 'There it is; I see it.' He was also a fairly liberal guy on this subject; he had been in the Navy during the war, so he didn't find the porn that came to the Court in his day to be all that hardcore, by and large.
Anyway, this is a stupid plan of the FCC. I'd rather have the connection be unfiltered. If users want to filter it on their end, that's fine, and I wouldn't even care if the government provided them with software to help (provided that it 1) didn't include any blacklists, 2) was basically open, and not farmed out to a private contractor).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The thing is without the large dispertion of christianity in europe and later america, do you really think you'd have more compassion in the world? What other set of beliefs other than the abrahamic religions have a strong sense of compassion, really now?
I find this offensive.
I also find that atheists are significantly more compassionate than Christians; while being less judgmental to boot.
Before you say a word, or come up with level of rationalization or logical deduction regarding the other major world religions, tell me what your first "feeling" is regarding my statement that Christians are a less compassionate bunch than atheists?
Do you, pray tell, find it offensive? Perhaps because it 'offends' some sense of knowledge and/or knowing that you have? Or perhaps its just makes you angry?
Well, that's precisely how I feel about: What other set of beliefs other than the abrahamic religions have a strong sense of compassion, really now?.
Now, I don't feel qualified to judge the "compassion" level of 'Christians', however, I do feel confident in understanding that compassion is a human quality, not a religious quality. Belief in Christ is not a necessary prerequisite.
Try not to make such inane, and offensive, statements in the future. It's not inappropriate to say that your Christian belief's help you reinforce your own personal sense of compassion; however, holding the position that your Christian belief's make your views on compassion "superior" to that of non-Christians is no less outrageous than racism or sexism. If you worked for me, and I heard anything about that at work, I'd fire you, the same way I'd fire a white supremacist, a fundamentalist Sunni, or a misogynist. I won't toot the superiority of atheism with people surrounding me, or try to convert them; you should give us the same curtsey.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell