FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless

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.'"

Comments

There's even a programming language for this

[noidentity]

There's already a whitespace programming language that would go perfect with this proposal!

Re:There's even a programming language for this

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why programmer's and really need girlfriends!

Re:There's even a programming language for this

[noidentity]

Only AND? Do OR and XOR already have girlfriends?

Re:There's even a programming language for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, you have two chicks in bed (or dudes). Do you do them both, either or both of them, or one and not the other?

Re:There's even a programming language for this

[KGIII]

No, you fight over the remote, listen to constant bickering, and have to fight for blankets. It is not all it is cracked up to be. It was fun for a while but any man who dreams of something like that has yet to experience it. If you can get into a relationship like that then make sure it is one where you kick them both out when the playtime is over. Otherwise it is expensive and turns out to be quite boring after just a remarkably short time.

I should probably post this AC...

Re:There's even a programming language for this

[cizoozic]

Yeah, but OR isn't exclusive.

FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!
They are not a child minding service, and I hope the successful buyer has the supreme court strike out any anti-free-speech or publication clauses.
They won't get top auction dollar either - free wireless porn outside red light districts or late night phone services, ads for beer and junk food and Viagra are the prime markets...

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The FCC's job has, is and always will be to censor content that is broadcast in the US. It is the central and primary purpose of the organization.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[mysidia]

This is example of how the FCC sometimes starts to follow a good idea, but then screws it up in an absurd way.

I see absolutely no good reason for certain frequencies to have content filters for children against the user's wishes

Internet access is an individual / personal use service, not a broadcast service, and other users of the wireless service are not exposed to content viewed or accessed by one user.

Whether or not content filters are applied should be entirely up to the user.

I predict this "filtering" will only encourage closing the media/protocols required to use this wireless service, or to prevent third party software development by users of the service.

Otherwise, end-users may find methods of bypassing filtering by carrying their traffic over IPsec ESP exchanges and use custom software to tunnel their traffic in a manner that evades filters.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[gsgriffin]

If it was the government responsibility to provide internet and free internet was a right of yours, then I would agree. I see this form of internet not replacing my home connection but rather providing a tool while out and about. When I'm out shopping, it would be nice to access my PDA and see what the competition's prices are online. When I'm on the road and need an address or phone number, it would be great to not have to pay cellular companies huge amount of money for a simple web access. If the only thing they are blocking is porn, fine! Do porn on your access that you pay for. I could get my email without a cell phone or Blackberry. I could even Skype call from my PDA? When I get home and have huge files to download, use the cable or DSL.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[mysidia]

What makes you think the internet access might be provided free of charge?

I'm sure there will be some compensation for the companies that offer the internet access; either they'll collect money before providing the connectivity, they'll require advertising rights, or they won't do it.

There's a difference between the wireless connection being free and the internet connectivity being free.

I.E. There are two connections involved your connection to the wireless provider, and the wireless provider's connection to the internet.

The FCC can work to make the wireless connection to the provider available for free.

The actual connectivity from ISP to internet has a price, the FCC can't make that free to the provider, so they will pass the cost on to the user somehow.

Unless the FCC is paying for it on the consumer's behalf (yeah right)

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[mysidia]

If it was the government responsibility to provide internet and free internet was a right of yours

The government is not providing the internet. And ultimately this service might replace your typical home internet connection, for most people.

They are doing the equivalent of a city/state government allowing cable companies to run cables through public property.

And requiring the land owners (rightholders according to the deeds that the government has issued), to allow cable lines to cross their property.

In the same manner the FCC may be requiring wireless spectrum owners to allow third-party internet service to be served using frequencies they are not actually using.

This type of concession required by deeded rightsholders doesn't mean it's appropriate for the government to start saying what kind of traffic can and can't be carried across the wire.

This is like your city saying that if your cable wire crosses city property, and you get Cable internet service from your provider, then the provider must filter all porn.

Fundamentally, this is a service the government is not providing over the connection, but they're trying to limit free speech over the connection anyways.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[gsgriffin]

I don't have a problem with that. If it's free, limit the product to be safe and a moral common denomitor. If you pay for it, they have no right to stop you from whatever you want. The bandwagon that too many people jump on is demanding everything for free. We need to get over this entitlement mentality in the US. Get access for free but pay for porn. Nothing unfair about it.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[fastest fascist]

I completely agree. In fact, tax dollars are used to fund public roads and streets, and all kinds of people use them. There's pornstars, bar employees, raunchy late-night comedians, atheists, bleeding heart liberal activists, you name it! People engaging in totally inappropriate behaviour, all using public infrastructure for free! Not cool. We need to get over this entitlement mentality.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Elektroschock]

In the EU Patrizia Toia recently got a similar report adopted by the European Parliament.

29. Encourages Member States to recognise the social, cultural and economic value of allowing unlicensed users access to the dividend, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and the not-for-profit sector, and thus increase the efficiency of spectrum use by concentrating such unlicensed uses in the currently unused frequencies (white spaces);

30. Calls for a step-by-step approach in this field; is of the opinion that effects for smaller networks - especially local wireless networks - for which no license requirements currently apply must be taken into account and that universal access to broadband, especially in rural areas, should be promoted;

31. Calls on Member States to support enhanced cooperation measures between spectrum management authorities to consider areas where unlicensed white space spectrum allocation would allow new technologies and services to emerge so as to foster innovation;

32. Encourages Member States to consider, in the context of allocating white space, the needs for unlicensed open access to spectrum by non-commercial and educational service providers and local communities which are driven by a public service mission; ...

43. Supports a common and balanced approach to the use of digital dividend, allowing both broadcasters to continue offering and expanding their services and electronic communications operators to use this resource to deploy new services addressing other important social and economic uses, but stresses that in any case the digital dividend should be allocated on a technology-neutral basis;

44. Stresses that spectrum policy needs to be dynamic and must enable broadcasters and communications operators to employ new technologies and develop new services, allowing them to continue to play a key role in achieving the objectives of cultural and media policy, while also providing new high-quality communications services;

45. Stresses the potential benefits in terms of economies of scale, innovation, interoperability and the provision of potential pan-European services of a more coherent and integrated spectrum planning at Community level; encourages Member States to work together and with the Commission to identify common spectrum sub-bands of the digital dividend for different application clusters that could be harmonised on a technology-neutral basis;

46. Believes that clustering within the UHF band should be based on a bottom-up approach according to the specifics of the national markets while ensuring that harmonisation at community level takes places wherever this creates a clear added value;

47. In order to achieve a more efficient use of spectrum and to facilitate the emergence of innovative and successful national, cross-border and pan-European services, supports a coordinated approach at Community level , based on different clusters of the UHF spectrum for uni-directional and bi-directional services, taking into account the potential for harmful interference arising from the co-existence of different types of networks in the same band, the outcomes of the ITU Geneva RRC 06 and WRC 07 and the existing authorisations; ...

51. Requests the Commission to conduct a study on conflicts between users of open source software and certification authorities concerning software defined radios;

52. Asks the Commission to propose steps for a reduction of legal liabilities in the context of wireless mesh network provision;

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your local library likely does not have content filters installed, but they are paid for with public tax payer money.

I don't think the government, especially the FCC, should be acting as our moral enforcer. There is a solution out there to block access to 'inappropriate material' for kids while allowing it for adults, they just need to think it over better.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[furbearntrout]

IIRC, libraries in the US are required to have content filters.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[gsgriffin]

I don't think we're reading the same thing here. I see the FCC saying that if they sell a range of frequency for broad, consistent, not carrier-specific signal braodcasting, it cannot be used as a paid for service...just like TV and Radio. You don't pay for those but get the benefit. They are attempting to do exactly the same thing as Radio and TV but for internet now. The cost to you and I will be advertising to help pay for the service. The benefit for families, is that the government will still require that the communication (free stuff) is brought to a common moral denominator...just like TV and Radio. Porn is not freely broadcast over the air to everyone. I'm glad than my young boy can't easily go anywhere and be led down that road.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[mysidia]

Porn is an extreme example. Providers will filter things that are far less objectionable, like weblogs, slashdot.org, youtube.com, myspace.com, for instance, because it's simply impossible to effectively filter only bad things on sites like these. I suspect also, they will block pages containing words that they deem distasteful, words such as "fuck", "shit", "g***dam*", "ass", for example.

You do pay for access to TV and Radio. Listening to advertising is paying. You are even exposed to more advertising than otherwise because broadcasters pay massive amounts to the FCC for use of spectrum.

You also pay massive taxes that fund the FCC; the least they can do is favor regulations that benefit the public more so than the corporations and ensure the public's liberty.

Network access is not a broadcast activity like radio or TV, where if something is shown on one TV, it is shown on many TVs. It is a private communications medium like telephone, a call on your cell phone, and everything you see is an answer to a request. Consider that 802.11g wireless has no content filtering restrictions.

A young boy can go easily anywhere and be led down that road, bringing their laptop to their friends' Wi-Fi or other hangout spot that provides unfettered access.

I have no objection to filtering being available to parents who want to setup their devices to do that, and it would be fine if they just forced the ISPs to make "content filtering" an available option. I do have objections to filtering being imposed on the entire user base of spectrum.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[gsgriffin]

If you have a problem with it, don't use it. Nobody will force you. That's your freedom. Providing unfettered access to porn to my child in my house is not cool. I'd have no way to stop the signals from coming in and going out. This is not private communication like a phone. This is public information that you will be given free access to. Want more. Pay for more...just like cable. Don't like the restriction, get the Playboy channel added to your subscription. There are not stopping anyones freedom of speech. Porn will still be on the internet and anyone can get to it whenever they want. They are simply stating that what will come over the airways to everyone without cost (other than advertising) will not be perfect and meet everyone's standard, but there will be an attempt to be more PG than XXX. Want more, pay for it.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a library system, I don't know if libraries have to have filters installed if they are private, but public libraries in NY that receive government funding/grants are required to block pornography, however they also have to (at least we have to) provide the password to bypass the content filter to any adult that requests it.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every public library I have been is has filters. And of course most of them are also running microsoft products so usually they are infested with spywarez. Their "filters" never seem to do such a hot job there.

As to the FCC, do some research and see how it came about, it started with regulating *commercials* back when all the radio was just free to listen to and had no maximum profits angle, they were really for educational purtposes mostly, and also giant stations on the border with Mexico broadcasting into the US and swamping other stations. the government had to step in and try to get some sort of regulations in place else it would have just turned into the horsepower war. Really, the libertarian model of anything goes just won't work with broadcast, if we didn't have some sort of regulations it would get down to a few billionaires would dominate the entire airwaves and...err...wait....hmmmm

WE NEED FCC REFORM! ;)

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[GigaplexNZ]

I completely agree. In fact, tax dollars are used to fund public roads and streets, and all kinds of people use them. There's pornstars, bar employees, raunchy late-night comedians, atheists, bleeding heart liberal activists, you name it! People engaging in totally inappropriate behaviour, all using public infrastructure for free! Not cool. We need to get over this entitlement mentality.

This comment is the prime example of entitlement mentality issues. Ignoring the stab at atheism et al for a minute [1], comparing the use of roads to "the right to have free wireless internet" (let alone unrestricted) is just ridiculous. Next you will be asking for free internet at home. And then all music/movies for free. And then all software for free. And then all hardware for free. Even if there was some foundation for the comparison, these people aren't typically performing said inappropriate behaviour while using the streets. I initially thought "What do you expect though from someone self-proclaiming to be a fascist" until I noticed the +4, Insightful moderation. Come on moderators, show some dignity.

[1] What's so inherently bad about atheism? I'm assuming that the implied "correct alternative" is Christianity. There is no proof that the Christian teachings are any better or more accurate than other religions. What's wrong with saying "hey, none of these look particularly appealing, I'm not going to choose any"? And what the hell is inherently wrong with bar employees?

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Cassius Corodes]

I think you missed the sarcasm there...

As for the meat of the argument - free internet would encourage economic activity (the same way roads encourage economic activity) that benefits society and so I would justify it as a collective expense (ie taxpayer funded). The internet is perhaps an exception in that its a common infrastructure not established by the government.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[GigaplexNZ]

I noticed the potential for sarcasm, but apparently the moderators didn't. They effectively supported the stance by moderating it insightful. "Funny" would have been a more appropriate moderation.

As for your counter-point, I agree that it can potentially promote economic growth. But "technically competent" end users who feel entitled to free internet are likely to be the main users of the infrastructure (potentially with ad blocking software with no intent to purchase anything). I'm not saying that it shouldn't go ahead, just that the whole entitlement mentality is unhealthy.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Cassius Corodes]

I agree that it would be the technically competent who would benefit most, but was this not the case with telephones and electricity too? It will take time for everyone to take full advantage, but in time it will happen - free internet could be a catalyst for this.

But on the more broader point - I think people need to have a real conversation about entitlement - what does each human being deserve, just for being born?

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[Atrox666]

They never had any legitimate right to censor anything. FULL STOP. Censorship is an oppressive act and those that perpetrate it no matter how well intentioned are evil. I hope they get what they deserve.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[fastest fascist]

It's not a question of whether or not you have the right to free internet. I don't think you have the "right" to free use of public infrastructure in the sense you seem to interpret the word "right". That service is provided for "free", that is, paid for by tax money, either because it's just how it's always been done or because there are thought to be benefits to doing it that way. Probably a bit of both. Same thing with "free" wireless internet, should it be provided. It's not a right, it's simply a service the government provides. I don't see how tax dollars being spent on internet access for everyone means the government should control what kind of content can be transmitted through their wireless service any more than they should control who drives on their roads.

(And I hope no-one is thinking of pulling the "what about traffic police" argument on me. We're not talking about criminal use of the internet, and anyway, filtering is censorship before the fact, not comparable to regular police work where you first have a crime and then an investigation.)

As for the rest of your comments, well, you may wonder whether I was serious or not. I'll say I was surprised about the insightful moderation myself, but I hoped it was just the mods figuring you can be both sarcastic and insightful at the same time. The alternative is frightening.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[bill_mcgonigle]

and a moral common denomitor

There's no such thing. You can approach such things for certain segments of the citizenry, but it's asymptotically impossible to achieve uniformly.

Only one thing is certain: for any thing that exists on Earth, you can find somebody whom it offends, and somebody else who is really turned on.

Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach!

[badkarmadayaccount]

We are not asking for free internet. We are asking for free etherspace to carry that internet, which is public property. And seen as it is only a communication medium, any censorship is suppressing free speech. Setting up the network is somone else's job. And yes, I support FLOSS, as most of us here at /., right guys?

It doesn't add up

[camperslo]

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 administration can't get away with anything more, it happens... (look for things stuffed into the bailout bill for instance).

There's some behind the scenes activity to try and head off actions the next administration might take to respond to the public. Here's an example.

Re:It doesn't add up

[Saroset]

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

Re:It doesn't add up

[douglaid]

Sale of spectrum is not new. Providing free services might have some advertising clout.

<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>

Re:It doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies aren't going to be interested in buying spectrum and giving it away for free. They ARE going to be interested in providing spectrum that will paid through with served adds, redirected web error pages, etc.

So this so called "free" internet is going to be filtered by the ISP, ad-filled by the ISP, and generally abused by the ISP. I wouldn't be surprised if they force you to their own search page, replace other webpage ads with their own, and monitor all your traffic since they're going to be able to tie you to a mac address and IP address.

Fuck the FCC. Show me where the constitution says the government has the right to censor our information.

Re:It doesn't add up

[mixmatch]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Oh, wait a minute...

Re:It doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

By selling those portions of spectrum you ensure that only the licensees and their customers (paying or not) have access to them. I would not be able to offer a similar service even if I had approved equipment and a clear, interference free band in my area. Auctioning this spectrum will instantly create a cartel (AT&T, Verizon, all the usual suspects).

  It would be much better for the public if the FCC makes this an unlicensed band and simply defines rules for equipment to access it and rules for mitigating interference,a la 900 MHz, 2.4GHz, etc.

They want to sell it (and they probably will) simply because the spectrum auction and the yearly license fees will increase the revenues of the FCC.

If they wanted to do right by you or I they would give this portion of the spectrum back to the public. Then we would see real competition for long range wireless internet services.

Re:It doesn't add up

[KGIII]

They aren't censoring it. They are just not providing it via a public infrastructure. You can still go home and use your own internet connection to download/view anything you'd like. Please don't use the road analogy either. They don't let you drive any ol' thing you want down the road as they want to protect the public interest.

I'm of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction. It is not everything but it is a start. If I can turn on my laptop anywhere in the country and get a connection for free then I'm going to be pleased even if it has ads, even if it doesn't allow me full access, even if it is in no way private. If I want those things than I'll happily do so in the privacy of my own home.

Re:It doesn't add up

[baby_tux]

IMO, it should be the choice of the provider to filter or not. What is exactly "inappropriate material for children"? Will the FCC make a list of websites? There could be some abuse here

Re:It doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can bitch about it here on Slashdot?

Re:It doesn't add up

[Chandon Seldon]

Either the public infrastructure is intended to be a major resource for the public, in which case censoring it is obviously unacceptable; or it's not intended to be useful for much of anything, in which case the federal government shouldn't be wasting their time with it.

Re:It doesn't add up

[KGIII]

Define major resource for the public for me please?

If, say, you include pornography as a major resource for the public please enlighten me?

For my thinking?

Email
Browsing
Searching
Maps
VPN
RealVNC

Unfettered access, while nice, doesn't appear to be the goal of this project. The goal doesn't appear to be to allow the same type of connectivity that one would expect to have from home but, rather, to offer a limited pool of resources for services one might need access to while being mobile.

Unfortunately the level of filtering hasn't been defined at all but if they decide that even /. is unacceptable then, really, they've simply said that it is not a need for the majority to access it while mobile, inappropriate (by current moral standards of the majority) content for a general audience, and/or can thus be excluded without impacting the results that they were hoping to get.

It isn't the prettiest system and it doesn't satisfy everyone but you'll never design a system that will make everyone happy. That Joe Sixpack can fire up his laptop on the road, connect to find the cheapest gas prices in town, send a quick email to his wife and kids, and login to the office to see if his sales data has been finished yet appears to be the goal. It doesn't *look* like this is meant to replace the internet connection you have in your home.

That's my take on it at any rate.

Re:It doesn't add up

[OrangeTide]

A better road analogy is that you're not allowed to drive naked or look at porn while driving.

Re:It doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to SELL spectrum that'd be used for "free" service? That doesn't make sense.

And they don't even allow porn on it!

I have no idea how they want to make money with this scheme.

Re:It doesn't add up

[KGIII]

Actually... I don't think you're allowed to drive nude? And, well, if you're spotted looking at porn while driving (in some areas this is prohibited directly as I understand meaning those people who have DVD players in their cars are restricted as it is visible from outside the car) there are likely a variety of methods that a police officer could use to cite you such as driving to endanger.

Re:It doesn't add up

[Chandon Seldon]

The service that they're talking about providing is a network connection, not email, maps or pornography. If it's just a toy for getting cooking recipes, then the government shouldn't waste the money. If this is intended to be a major communication channel, even the primary network link for people who can't afford other services, then the government certainly shouldn't be censoring it.

Re:It doesn't add up

[electrictroy]

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 brilliant of the FCC Chair to take-away my free television.

Re:It doesn't add up

[PingPongBoy]

What is exactly "inappropriate material for children"? Will the FCC make a list of websites?

Whatever happens, this site ought to be in the top 500. The filth and smut would corrupt beyond redemption.

Re:It doesn't add up

[electrictroy]

Public over-the-air waves are censored in order to protect children from seeing things they should not see. It's been that way ever since the 1930s. If you want uncensored information, then you upgrade to cable television, satellite radio, or private subscription internet.

I'm more concerned about losing my television.

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 long-distance Washington D.C. stations will disappear, since her Ipod will think those are open channels & start broadcasting all over them. That's just great; just wonderful; how brilliant of the FCC Chair to take-away my free television.

Oh:

And the roads? The government can not take-away your right to travel freely. It's a God-given right, and last I checked, the government does not overrule God. If you want to hop into an old, unregistered Model T and go to the beach, the government can not stop you. It has not been granted the power by the constitution.

Re:It doesn't add up

[electrictroy]

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.

Re:It doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between the AWS-3 spectrum and the TV airwaves that the tech companies want to use for White Spaces. The FCC has not ruled on White Spaces. That report is likely to come out later this week. The headline on the Washington Post story was wrong and confused a lot of people.

US of China?

[Saroset]

"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?

[sakdoctor]

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:US of China?

[Saroset]

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:US of China?

[MrNaz]

Oh, and what the hell does "US of China" mean? I think you were looking for "The democratic people's republic of America".

Democratic? Not by any meaningful definition of the word. People's? It's clear to all but the most ignorant of nationalistic delusional individuals that the US government hasn't been by the people, for the people or of the people for a very, very long time.

Re:US of China?

[sakdoctor]

It's euphemistic. Actually there are only four countries in the world that don't claim to be democratic.

Re:US of China?

[Saroset]

Oh! Wow, I feel stupid. That just clicked.

Re:US of China?

[buddyglass]

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.

Re:US of China?

[Darkness404]

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:US of China?

[lysergic.acid]

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:US of China?

[ScrewMaster]

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 episode contained some full-frontal nudity that never made it down here.

Apparently, the mere sight of woman's body, when combined with certain words, immediately corrodes a child's virgin mind into uselessness or permanent insanity. I'd like to know what bizarre thought processes lead to that conclusion on the part of our lawmakers.

Now, maybe that's just me ... I had an ex-Marine for an uncle when I was growing up. Fuck if I know.

Re:US of China?

[KGIII]

It's okay. Regardless of what they teach you in school they often will then have you sit there and say:

"And to the Republic for which it stands..."

The U.S. hasn't ever been a democracy.

Re:US of China?

[KGIII]

No, not really censored at all. You can still get cable, you can still use the internet in your home, you can still buy copies of books, magazines, etc... Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. It equals an implied morality for a public space sort of like you can't legally have open sex at a public park even if you think you're doing so equals you saying something important.

Re:US of China?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:

"We need to reserve some spectrum for free broadband services," Martin said. "This would be lifeline broadband service . . . that would be designed for lower-income people who may not otherwise have access to the Internet."

I do not want the FCC mandating that I have a crappy level of free, censored (and they are mandating censorship here) access to public spectrum that has been auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Why auction this spectrum at all. Wouldn't we be better served if it was unlicensed but regulated like wifi?

Re:US of China?

[shaitand]

'Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV.'

And as with TV and Radio they are a violation of the rights of the citizens. It is neither the pejorative nor the right of government to attempt to legislate morality upon the people. Or to censor what they may say or hear in any fashion.

We have a right to free speech. Nobody is forced to tune to a radio station, a tv, or to pull up a given website.

Re:US of China?

[shaitand]

'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 codes of morality. What is worse is that morality is often tied to religious values and that is another legislative no no.

'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.'

Even if that view were constitutional it still relies upon the fact that others walking through the park have no choice but to view the display. The same is not true of tv where you must buy a device and explicitly tune into a given channel, nor of radio where the same is true (you can't HEAR the airwaves bounced around everywhere without doing so), and is even less true of the internet where there isn't even a dial. You actually have to intentionally pull up content on the internet.

If an adult wants to use to the internet to browse images of sodomizing midgets that is his/her choice and not the FCC's. There is more than adequate censorship software available for parents to install on their family's computers.

Re:US of China?

[KGIII]

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 doesn't mean that there is an obligation to cuddle their interests.

You *can* order any magazine you want, any book you want, anything legal that you want. Book banning in school is, however retarded, not censorship as they can certainly read them at home if their parents wish to make them available. So long as you can access the material it isn't censored.

If an adult wants to use the internet to browse sodomized midgets he's free to do so from his own home. The government doesn't have an obligation to provide midget sodomy just like you're not allowed to show sodomized midgets on public roads.

Before you say something about it not being a broadcast, remember that on the roads (or in my park example) your other party had the right to turn their heads. We typically try to keep public spaces "decent" because the majority of people want it that way.

If they are going into your home and preventing you from using your privately paid for internet connection to find your sodomized midgets then, by all means, stand up and say that they're doing something wrong. But if you're advocating that books containing images of sodomized midgets should be available in public elementary schools I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.

Re:US of China?

[gsgriffin]

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 of the country, go to the country that thinks more like you. Don't like any moral legislation, there are many places in Africa you can go and experience first hand lawlessness. Should the government help provide control over what people can do and can't do. They have to!!!

Re:US of China?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Republic and Democracy become mutually exclusive?

Re:US of China?

[KGIII]

Well, we have a representative democracy if you'd like. My polisci courses defined democracy as rule by the majority which was a Bad Thing® in that the rights of the minorities were easily abused. Unfortunately we can't seem to settle on a real meaning for the word, not even Wikipedia has it figured out, so the debate is pretty much futile. Even if we go by the majority we still have a recent bill that passed bailing out the financial districts that was opposed of by a large number of people. I don't know if the majority of citizens opposed it but polls seem to suggest that they did.

When people mis-represent you in your name with a figurehead that has assumed too much power I'm thinking we're not democratic any more.

As the majority is seemingly not listened to (for better or worse) I have a hard time calling it democracy.

Re:US of China?

[interiot]

I find that these filters are more often abused for control rather than used appropriately.

More specifically, there is no precise definition of pornography 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.

Re:US of China?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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 things were really in the ballpark of that, we would not be having this conversation for a variety of reasons.)

There is a big difference between shutting you up and not allowing you to broadcast your penis on the public airwaves.

Re:US of China?

[shaitand]

'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 desire laws that help provide a common morality for us to live in.'

False. We subject ourselves to a government to pool our resources and strength in order to protect the weaker members of society from the stronger. Morality is not at play beyond the moral choice of a society over anarchy. Even the anarchists are allowed, they simply aren't strong enough to oppose the society.

'Should the government help provide control over what people can do and can't do. They have to!!!'

That is the duty of state and local governments not the federal government. The federal government exists to disputes between states and negotiate with foreign powers.

Even the state and local governments should impose upon the population to no greater extent than is needed to protect it. And by protection I mean financial and physical protection only, not moral, or protection of 'sensibilities'.

Censorship protects nobody, least of all the children used to justify it in this case.

Re:US of China?

[shaitand]

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 strongest imposes his rule upon the weaker and Mr. Society is stronger than Mr. Anarchist.

I answered someone else on the same issue here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=992943&cid=25347479

'But if you're advocating that books containing images of sodomized midgets should be available in public elementary schools I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.'

If you mean do I suggest said books should be in the library then of course not. Unless there were some sort of education value no book should be in the library at school. That doesn't mean books should be banned in schools either.

For example, while attending Effingham High School in Illinois I brought a copy of the Satanic Bible by Anton Levy to study hall to read. Prior to that it was the Koran, and prior to that it was the King James Bible. I was sent to the office and book was confiscated and I was advised that it was inappropriate. Naturally, the following day I returned with a copy. Again, I found myself in the Vice Principal's office. I explained that this was my religion and the school had no right to prevent me from studying and practicing it. Again the book was confiscated.

The third time, it was the principal and not the vp that I spoke to. I advised the principal that so long as the school library contained christian bibles I was not about to allow anyone to prevent me from bringing the religious materials of any religion to school. I was expelled from school. The justification was that the Satanic Bible is on the states list of banned books. Christian Bibles remain in the school library to this day and are the only religious books in the collection.

'I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.''

There is another way to say majority rule, it is mob rule.

That is the reason we have both a house and a senate, to ensure the will of the majority of the population is not the definition of law. The majority are ignorant, poorly educated, I dare say stupid, and as a rule are not qualified to have opinions on most matters.

Of course the senate just helps to secure the position of the wealthy elite rather than the competent elite but that is another debate altogether ;)

Re:US of China?

[buddyglass]

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

Re:US of China?

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:US of China?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

Re:US of China?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If kids want to find the content, they will find it with or without filters."

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.

Your kidding right? "They will find what they are looking for with or without filters"So why bother, right?. Boundaries are needed! We as adults have boundaries; speed limits,social laws governing/protect us. I guess we should dump those "filters" because people will find away with or without them.

I am not picking on you personally, I just get frustrated seeing people give up on trying to mold, support and dare I say it, raise children in a path that gives them freedom as they mature and not dump them in "freedom" which they are not equipped to handle.

Daddydano

Re:US of China?

[rtb61]

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 should not be given access to an adult public network and the filtering needs to occur at a hardware level and force a connection only to restricted content limited access, school networks, ensuring any content that is made accessible to children is constantly reviewed and any child to child interactions are monitored fro abuse.

You seriously want an internet that is safe for children then create a separate for children internet, it is utter stupidity to attempt to make an adult network tame for children. For a start, how many adds should a child be subject to, what nature of adds should a child be subject to, how frequently should a child be exposed to an add, are adult adds suitable for children and, in a child's psychologically formative years how manipulative are those adds allowed to be.

So for a start all adds that could 'possibly' be viewed by children should be assessed for suitability by qualified people for harmful, manipulative and inappropriate content. This really points to the biggest stumbling block for a children only supervised internet, greed because the major advertisers don't wont to be blocked from being able to manipulate the choice of children, hmm, psychological child molesters.

Re:US of China?

[buddyglass]

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 probably a good argument against free wireless broadband.

Re:US of China?

[rtb61]

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.

Re:US of China?

[electrictroy]

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 between these two countries' over-the-air regulations is minimal.

Re:US of China?

[buddyglass]

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 otherwise. My original comment was in regard to the motivation for such filtering, not its feasibility. All the arguments in FCC vs. Pacifica, i.e. the basis for the FCC's ability to establish and enforce, via the legal system, standards for broadcast TV, also apply to free wireless net access.

But since we already established that it's not possible to effectively filter net content, I'm left with the conclusion that free wireless broadband is a bad idea.

Re:US of China?

[I'm not really here]

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 pages if going outside their "common" ratings.
• Have a simple reporting system for violators of the system, with fines/penalties for not properly self-regulating.
• Censor nothing
• encourage software makers to offer software that allows parents to filter out based on those categories.

Not perfect, but it is a better system than blacklisting, whitelisting, word filtering, image filtering, etc. because it relies on human judgment of the content as opposed to a computer based recommendation or filtration.

Please don't go into all of the reasons why this will still allow people to access stuff they shouldn't, as I already know that it is not a perfect system, but it would allow the FCC to say "see, we're doing our job!" and allow parents to say "Thanks, we can block this now, just like the V-Chip!", and let's Joe Porno Guy to say "I can allow 100% in!! Thank you for not censoring me!"

Sounds like a good compromise for all.

Re:US of China?

[I'm not really here]

I agree with the responsibility of molding children into healthy adults and putting them on the right path (obviously, from my sig), but I do not think it is or ever should be the government's job to raise our children. I block those things from my home that I do not want in my home. I will teach my children right and wrong, teach them to respect their elders, and as they grow older, teach them to question authority, question everything I have taught them (to gain critical thinking skills), and give them more and more freedom while reminding them that I have been there and done that, and it's not the best choice in the world.

If the government steps in, my children are raised with the government's moral code, and I really don't want that for my children.

Re:US of China?

[macdaddy]

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:US of China?

[cmarkn]

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.

Re:US of China?

[electrictroy]

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:US of China?

[macdaddy]

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.

Re:US of China?

[badkarmadayaccount]

These are the values that society has decided on and, for the most part, the majority of people seem happy about them.

A trillion flies can't be wrong - eat shit. Nice sig, isn't it?

Use of White Spaces For Wireless

[geonik]

So does this mean we are allowed to write "Wire Less" now?

Re:Use of White Spaces For Wireless

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, I do wire less now that I have wireless. I also do far more posting on slashdot while taking a shit.

Re:Use of White Spaces For Wireless

[ScrewMaster]

So does this mean we are allowed to write "Wire Less" now?

No, because truth-in-advertising requires you to be honest about it. It's just "Less Wire", because while it doesn't send data over wires, you still have to plug the damn thing in.

No ulterior motives here, nosireee.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC is eager to sell the spectrum. If they had to give it away, they'd be less eager to discover that there isn't any problem.

The telcos don't want the competition of free services. If they were bidding for spectrum to use however they please, they'd be less eager to think the FCC's test is flawed.

Who's lyingest?

Re:No ulterior motives here, nosireee.

[lysergic.acid]

what difference does it make to the FCC whether they sell the spectrum or give it away? aside form keeping public interest in mind, they shouldn't care either way, since the money gained from selling the spectrum would not go to the FCC. AFAIK the FCC is funded the same way most government agencies are--by fiscal policy. they don't make commission on the spectrum licenses they auction off, nor do their employees.

that's sorta the whole point of having a government agency regulating the radio spectrum rather than a for-profit corporation. so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum, i can't see how the decision to sell this part of the spectrum is financially motivated.

now, if you want to talk about war logistics contracts given to the private sector, then that's a different story.

Re:No ulterior motives here, nosireee.

[shaitand]

'so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum'

They do, the FCC board has enjoyed the solicitation of a few major communications companies since the beginning. In many ways, that is the only reason we are still stuck with the FCC.

Filters? Whose filters?

[demiurge11]

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

Re:Filters? Whose filters?

[Anonymous Coward]

" " if I know.

Re:Filters? Whose filters?

[Ihmhi]

All you [expletive deleted] are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the [expletive deleted]! We're gonna [expletive deleted] your mothers while you watch and cry like little [expletive deleted]! Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax [expletive deleted] who are making that movie, we're gonna make 'em eat our [expletive deleted], then [expletive deleted] out our [expletive deleted], then eat their [expletive deleted] which is made up of our [expletive deleted] that we made 'em eat! Then all you [expletive deleted] are next!

Love, Jay and Silent Bob.

Re:Filters? Whose filters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kevin Martin, of course. The FCC is staffed by kleptocrats on a power trip. This has zilch to do with "decency" and everything to do with some sort of company that Martin has stock in.

Re:Filters? Whose filters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or will it be more like DNS error: jayandsilentbob.dyndns.org not found?

hed asplodes

[Anonymous Coward]

So they want to SELL bandwidth for CENSORED internet, but it will be FREE?

This is AWS, not White Spaces

[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.

Re:This is AWS, not White Spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The headline here is misleading at best (and so was the Reuters article about this). The FCC has not issued any report yet on the White Space Device tests they did back in the summer.

By inappropriate for children..

[nightfire-unique]

..they're referring to religious screed, spam, violence, war propaganda and fox "news," right?

Sex? Oh.

Inappropriate?

[ScrewMaster]

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

Considered by whom?

Re:Inappropriate?

[KGIII]

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 that content.

I have two children and I, personally, don't care as I have no problem turning the television off and they have no problems reading or entertaining themselves in other ways.

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.

Re:Inappropriate?

[shaitand]

'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. Second, of course they don't want to have to expend 10 seconds of effort to program the content blocking on their TV. Why should that equate to ignoring the constitution? If people would rather trade freedom of speech for the time it takes to program the v-chip in their TV then there is a method to amend the constitution.

The sad thing is, if pitched correctly I could see people doing it.

Re:Inappropriate?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Inappropriate?

[ScrewMaster]

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:Inappropriate?

[shaitand]

'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:Inappropriate?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Inappropriate?

[KGIII]

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 right the hell off if they tell you that you can't have that content in your own home.

The public, being the majority, expect a certain standard of morals in public spaces.

Hell, I'm even okay with them banning a book from a public school provided they don't disallow the parents the chance to give that book to their child. (You may not be one of Those People but we had a big row in my daughter's school about them banning a book, some people were unhappy. One of the other parents - I did not attend - brought up that the school had also discontinued carrying the Bible and some children's literature concerning Bible stories in the library at the request of the some of the people who were now unhappy because they were banning books.)

As near as I can tell there are only a few things you can't have in the privacy of your own home. Things like videos or pictures of real sexual abuse being one of them. Those would be laws, those would be censored, and the moral majority has decided that's the way they like it. You might want those things but they have said, "No, you can't have them." For better or worse that is how things are.

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 do it in the home which is where those things belong and should be allowed.

Re:Inappropriate?

[shaitand]

"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 do it in the home which is where those things belong and should be allowed.'

I do. The right to free speech overrides the 'moral majority' and what YOU like. That said, we are talking about content that is viewed in the home, not public content. Internet access is just the road, the website is a private establishment like an adult club or a bookstore. You aren't talking about not allowing me to flash children as I drive by, you are talking about preventing me from using public roads to go to private clubs.

'Those would be laws, those would be censored, and the moral majority has decided that's the way they like it.'

Any law in violation of the Constitution is neither legal nor applicable. The Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land. Any enforcement of a law that breaks it is a crime in itself.

Re:Inappropriate?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Inappropriate?

[shaitand]

'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:Inappropriate?

[KGIII]

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 free unlimited internet access to anyone who happens by. There might be one but I can't think of it.**

**Then again, wait... I can't think of another country that is going to offer free wireless as an amenity to citizens and tourists.

Err... Wait, what? Your problem is that you want unfettered free public access to porn and that if you don't get this than you're not being allowed your freedoms?

*shrugs* I don't get it. I suppose you don't actually live here do you?

Re:Inappropriate?

[electrictroy]

>>>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.

"Interference"

[The Cisco Kid]

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'

Really Simple

[gsgriffin]

This is what the FCC has done with Radio and TV for years. They provide access to the public to services and require the providers to give it for free. What do your have to pay? Time. You wil have to go through advertising pop-ups. But, if you need internet while out of the home or away from coffee, you can still get it. Free is not difficult to provide. You've seen computers over the years given away for free with a required internet connection and ads stuffed in your face constantly. We shouldn't be looking at this concept as a replacement to your internet connection. It simply is intended to expand the availability of the average person and perhaps give internet to those that may not need it all the time.

White spaces

[fph il quozientatore]

WowIcan'timaginehowdifficultwirelesswasbeforetheyallowedtheuseofwhitespaces

OFFTOPIC: mouseover on tags

[mapkinase]

It seems to me that new interface provides an opportunity for both support and negate tags: mouseover on the tag shows "!" and "x!, but I cannot figure out how to use those "!" and "x!" - I cannot use my mouse on them, because they disappear when I move it.

Is anybody able to do use this feature? Old way works too, so it's not a big deal, but I just feel like a newbie monkey when I cannot use that new think.

What content? Whose children?

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:What content? Whose children?

[gsgriffin]

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 SOCIETY FOR US TO LIVE IN. Have you lived in a society with no laws of censorship whatsoever. Not pretty! Brings up callosed children that have little respect for life and certainly don't care about themselves. I've seen it in Africa when I lived there for a while.

Re:What content? Whose children?

[Jane Q. Public]

"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 impressed, and so I will continue to make my own decisions regarding my children.

"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?"

I have driven across this entire nation, from coast to coast, and I have never seen such. Anywhere. Where do you live, anyway? If you don't like it, maybe you should move, considering that there are LOTS of places where such things do not exist.

"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?"

Yes, but so what? I have never seen anything like that anyway. The crudest and most violent commercials I see today are by the anti-smoking and anti-abortion crowds. And believe me, I find some of those to be extremely offensive.

"Be real."

I am.

"There is a lot of consorship that help to provide a SAFER SOCIETY FOR US TO LIVE IN."

Bullshit! First off, the absence of naked billboards and the lack of murders on TV commercials is NOT "censorship"!!! Those are the result of community standards, which are completely different. Nobody would buy from a company that showed murders in its commercials, and not many folks would put up with naked billboards on their streets. But once again: community standards are NOT the same thing as censorship. Real censorship NEVER makes anybody safer.

"Have you lived in a society with no laws of censorship whatsoever. Not pretty! Brings up callosed children that have little respect for life and certainly don't care about themselves. I've seen it in Africa when I lived there for a while."

That's nice. But you are confused. Here in America, we generally consider censorship by Government to be unconstitutional. There is a hell of a lot less of it here than you think, and some of what you do see is not strictly legal.

Re:What content? Whose children?

[gsgriffin]

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.

Re:What content? Whose children?

[nedlohs]

If you are talking about non-US locations then don't say "in the US", since everyone else will assume that when you do you are making a statement about things "in the US".

FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wirele

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa! Hold Up! The FCC report cited in this thread has nothing to do with the TV "White Spaces" debate; it's actually about an entirely different matter in an entirely different portion of the RF spectrum. Y'all's comments are only serving to show how confused everyone is about these things.

So I guess

[kilodelta]

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.

Legitimate Content blocked out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask one of the resident nerds in your school. They know how to bypass the filters.

Woot

[moniker127]

Score one for Larry Paige?

Get yer own pr0n

[Telepathetic Man]

This one's mine!

Morals are required here!

[gsgriffin]

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

Re:Morals are required here!

[shaitand]

'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 specifically allowed by law (as opposed to merely not being legislated against).

Re:Morals are required here!

[gsgriffin]

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?

Re:Morals are required here!

[shaitand]

'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 service, many laws in the jim jones south. Do you suggest that these laws were ever appropriate?

Simply because something is on the books does not mean it should be a law or is moral justified or even agreed upon. It isn't as if lawmakers ACTUALLY represent their constituents.

'If it's wrong but there is no moral underpinning behind that conclusion, how do you know it is wrong?'

If something is 'wrong' there will be a practical reason. A simple one that covers most action is that building a positive report with others tends to improve your chances for success in life. Many systems are unworkable without agreed rules of behavior.

A simple example. I worked at a place with a fridge in the breakroom. In the fridge there were cases of soda and a little cup. If you took a soda you put a quarter in the cup, this worked on the honor system. Why didn't you steal sodas? Because there wouldn't be enough money to buy more soda if you did. No moral code required, just a simple selfish desire for readily available cold drinks.

If the moralists say its wrong but there is no practical underpinning for that belief, they are incorrect.

If you want to get philosophical, technically humans and even the entire species are insignificant, let alone our individual actions. In a billion years our existence won't even have mattered. The universe won't care, but you might.

Re:Morals are required here!

[ZmeiGorynych]

how do you know what is right and wrong without morals?

'Right' and 'wrong' are not globally well-defined terms, they're purely personal, and different for different people. Abortion is one of the many cases where the deeply felt 'right' and 'wrong' of one person is exactly the opposite of another. And unless I actually go out and physically harm other people, I'd like folks like you to keep their morals to themselves - I got enough of my own, thank you.

Re:Morals are required here!

[gsgriffin]

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, it doesn't hurt you, why care? Others will treat animals any way they want. Doesn't hurt you. Different understanding of right and wrong. We may not agree on every law, but we need something. To some it will ALWAYS seem a limitation. To others it will always seem a protection.

Big brother is real

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Brother is real ...this is just another example of the fucking government trying to control every thing it possibly can. the internet is the last holdout for free and independent thinking and strangely enough for once im on the side of the telecoms, wow it feels weird just saying that.you want to know why the fcc is making all the televisions go digital, so they can broadcast the same thing on every channel.If you havnt ever seen the movie v for vendetta you should watch it.the similarities in the movie compared to how our government is being run today is god damn scary!
 

I am not the one confused here.

[Jane Q. Public]

"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 here in the U.S.), but the simple fact is that governments are not capable of administering moral values.

That is the point I was making, and the point that you completely failed to get. Censorship (and other forms of tyranny) come from the "top down", i.e., from "authority" to the people. Moral standards (the "community standards" I mentioned before) go from the bottom up: from the people to the government.

That is not just the way it works, that it the only way it CAN work! Especially here.

The people tell the government what THEY think is appropriate. NOT the other way around. I really don't much care where you have lived before, but you sure as hell don't know much about how the United States has worked, and how it is supposed to work!

Re:I am not the one confused here.

[gsgriffin]

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 me than you. That means that laws will continue to be made to support the morals I hold and not you. I realize that is frustrating and would be frustrating to me if the tide turns. Then laws will start being passed that allow people to do what you want them to do. If that happens, I we can easily refer to many places around the world that are already functioning the way you want. I don't find those place enjoyable and they certainly still have their problems (people from those countries still flock to the US). I'm simply stating that you are wishing for a Utopia in your mind. It wouldn't look like that once you head down that road. Problems you are not even imagining will come into place, and then you would say "Oh hell! What did we do to ourselves!!"

What?

[epukinsk]

Content filters? *Auctions*?

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

Use of spectrum for Internet - Homeplug/Shortwave

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been issues with these Home Plugs networking devices using your house wiring to radiate all over the shortwave band. I wonder if the advancement of networking and the idea of bringing us all into the Century of the Fruitbat causes people to turn a blind eye at times to spectrum issues.

(The tin-foil hat people could wonder how useful things like that are for countries like China. No need to use big music transmissions to jam those pesky shortwave transmissions getting unwanted ideas over your border if you can get a load of Internet users to do it for you with broadband noise from Homeplugs)

No, not what I was saying.

[Jane Q. Public]

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, because in fact the majority of people do NOT agree with you about government-imposed censorship. Poll after poll after poll have demonstrated that repeatedly and consistently. Go ahead. Check for yourself. But, from what I have seen, you will probably just confuse that with cultural values again.)

Then you refer to "places that function the way [I] want." Sorry, guy, but you are STILL confused! That place is the United States! Government censorship is ILLEGAL in this country! Granted, some concessions have been made (poorly, in the past) by the FCC in re: public television. Arguably, even those are unconstitutional. They only get away with it because the Supreme Court has said that they can enforce "community standards"! NOT the government's view of what should be said.

See, it keeps coming back to community standards and cultural standards, not government. Which is what I said in the beginning, and which you have still refused to understand.

Further, as history has clearly shown (again, I don't care where you have lived before because you don't seem to know the difference between a law and a cultural value): censorship is the first and foremost tool of oppressive governments. Not many Americans are fond of oppressive government.

If this is the only kind of thing you have to say, then I am done wasting my time here.