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

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?

[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:There's even a programming language for this

[noidentity]

Only AND? Do OR and XOR already have girlfriends?

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]

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!

[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.

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.