Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless

Posted by timothy on from the just-use-a-contrasting-radio-wave dept.

After the FCC's tests mentioned early last month, andy1307 submits word of the FCC's report (released Friday), writing that "the major telcos disagree with the FCC's report that concluded that using white spaces to provide free wireless internet 'would not cause major interference with other services. ... The FCC concluded that sufficient technical protections would prevent major problems.' FCC chairman Kevin Martin's proposal is to auction off the spectrum, with some rules attached. 'Some of the spectrum would be used for free Internet service, which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children.'"

18 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. There's even a programming language for this by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re:There's even a programming language for this by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only AND? Do OR and XOR already have girlfriends?

  2. Re:It doesn't add up by Saroset · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  3. US of China? by Saroset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:US of China? by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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".

    2. Re:US of China? by Saroset · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:US of China? by buddyglass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:US of China? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:US of China? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  5. Filters? Whose filters? by demiurge11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  6. Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. This is AWS, not White Spaces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! by gsgriffin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  9. Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  11. What content? Whose children? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What content? Whose children? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.