Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considering Free Internet For USA
jbolden writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the FCC is considering a plan to provide free wireless internet. The plan would involve some level of filtering, but might allow adults to opt out. CTIA has argued that this business model has traditionally failed (see Slate magazine's analysis as to why)."
WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.
I mean welfare and social security is great, but besides the roads and military it would be nice to get some value back.
So when site owners can make their own rules/laws on their website, you are unable to browse anonymously we are going to make internet free. What a great coincidence.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Out on the road? Can't find an open WiFi hotspot to check google maps? Solved.
Out on the road? Want to download the newest HD episode of your show? Ya, you're going to want to get a connection from a paid-for ISP.
I predicted this before I read it. Anything a government is going to provide you will also be completely controlled by them.
That's the same thing they said about parents who want to home school their kids rather than sending them to public schools, but is not the case, they still have to pay for other peoples kids via taxes to get the worthless education currently being provided.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Yes I'm sure the ISP's will let this one go through....
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Health Care should be a right.
Internet access should just be affordable with reasonable performance.
Try getting old and/or sick sometime and you'll get the perspective.
And a hell of a lot of monitoring...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Since water and food are necessary for health, are you advocating that those two commodities are free to all?
I don't want the government to be my ISP, and I really don't like the implications of having a net connection that is so directly controlled by the government. The fact that filtering is even mentioned at all suggests what a potentially bad idea this really is. Filtering, surveillance and the displacement of unfiltered commercial alternatives? No thanks.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
It seems a whole lot easier to provide free wifi.
Maybe some day medical stuff can carry connected PDAs for accessing patient info.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
from TFA:
Yeah, just type in your social security number and your password...
Age verification = no privacy...on a government network at least...
I really can't imagine a more effective way for the government to track and monitor the activities of its citizens. Which is bad. Normally I would love the idea, even if it had to be offered at slower speeds, but unless we make it open, with NO AGE VERIFICATION or anything of that sort we're just asking for 1984...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Once they start filtering content they believe children shouldn't see, why would they not also filter -- and perhaps monitor -- adult access to gambling websites, The Pirate Bay, Al-Qaeda websites, etc.?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Right, the same FCC that is fining stations hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didn't bleep out Bono's "fucking brilliant" in time will determine what is and isn't suitable content accessible through this service.
Fuck that.
People will absorb ANY amount of bandwidth if it's free. This thing will ALWAYS be overloaded and unusable. Period.
No sig today...
What's left???
And shelter too! Much more important than healthcare, and more expensive as well. Whee! It's communitarianism!
The effectiveness or lack thereof, is not the problem. The bigger problem is as follows:
First, They intend this thing to be available to the majority of the population, that means it will be a significant market force and not just some kind of low income, rural internet access for those who don't have one now. That means even if i choose not to use it, i will be affected by it in some way.
Second, these people, M2Z (the company) and the ones pushing for this behind the scenes, jumped right to porn when the question of blocking came up. Why porn? That question must be asked. Why not violence? Why not hate speech? Why not unhealthy recipes for sweets? Are we protecting children, or imposing a social agenda on the population? If you are going to block something, other things should be higher on your priority list if your excuse is protecting the children. Something tells me protecting children isn't the goal, or rather the idiots involved think porn is the most harmful thing children (or anyone?) could see on the internet.
Next, it isn't free either, it's ad-supported. No matter what, i am funding your censorship of me by using this network. They are either going to be altering traffic transparently, or forcing users to use a proxy, or run a desktop client (substantially limiting its usefulness) to show you those ads. And they are going to be selectively blocking one type of content unless you pay more as the summary states (maybe).
Those 2 things, altering traffic to show ads, and selective content delivery or prioritization (network neutrality etc), are things the FCC has been railing against for a long time. It is a conflict of interest for the FCC to be encouraging these things in one situation while profiting from the thing, while blasting other ISPs for doing the same thing.
I can only hope this entire thing fails at this point, it's a somewhat good idea, being hampered and fucked with through government interference and mandate (which might even be unconstitutional), and behind the scenes influence.
Obviously you've never received care in a wealthy European nation. After spending some time overseas coming back to the US's healthcare system is like going back in time to the middle ages. "Oh, you wont cover that? You say its pre-existing? You wont pay for that test by doctor wants? Oh only $800 deductible? Oh, another bill from another readjustment? Oh, I lost my job and wont have insurance for two months and COBRA is 800 a month?"
>Government screws up everything it touches.
Bullshit. Certain people in power want you to believe competent government cant exist, but it does all over the world. Republicans love to sell you on this line because it helps their corporate masters make more money and provides an excuse for their corruption in office. Perhaps you should be voting in the guy who is willing to do things right as opposed to resigning yourself to shitty government run by shitty people.
Of course that only works as long as you can tax the rest of the country to pay for it.
Once people start saying to themselves, "WTF am I working for? The government will pay for my food, shelter, etc. All I have to do is kickback and enjoy it. Working and paying taxes is for suckers.", things will deteriorate very quickly.
Yes, I know, you're not worried about that.
You can't use your home phone to talk 24/7
You have clearly never seen a house full of teenage girls. lol
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Don't worry, the second assumption will become true again if our healthcare system isn't fixed.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
No such thing as free healthcare. Speaking as a Canadian who has spent 10 of his 50 years south of the 49th the US system wins for me. It has issues to be sure but the Canadian "free" system is far more expensive and the service is moving laughable at best.
My brother in-law was had a small heart attack this last thanksgiving and had to wait until wait for an MRI because the operators were away for the long weekend, now that's quality right there. I can add many more stories....its just sad.
I know a few canucks that have mortgaged their house to pay to get have surgery done in the US rather than wait the 6-18 months or longer in Canada.
When was the last time you heard of an efficiently and effectively run government program. They are only good at getting in the way and paying 10x the market rate for snow.
Heaven help us all if the US follows the same broken path. We'll have to fly overseas to find an available surgeon.
...and how long do you think that the restrictions will be limited to just porn and you can opt out? We have things like the "fairness doctrine" being kicked around in Congress to censor political speech on radio and **AA legislation for physical media. Once you give the government control, the cat is out of the bag and not going back in. Why do you think this will be one iota different?
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
So this is going to be a service that I didn't ask for and will not use, paid for with my Tax Dollars, regulated by a government agency that I didn't vote for (FCC thugs are appointed not voted). They only let you to opt out of using it, not paying for it.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Government doesn't have anything it didn't get from someone else. There is NOTHING they provide that is free.
It is an absolutely horrible idea to have the government become your ISP. Think of the danger this presents to free speech when the method of communication you use is controlled by the government. Would you have free speech if government controlled all the TV Networks or Newspapers? What if they said they will preform "some filtering" on them?
Now I know that they did not say they would be getting rid of traditional ISP's (who suck because they are usually government "provided" duopolies in most places) however if people feel they *already* pay through taxes for a service why pay extra again? Would that not make the government the dominant ISP?
Government has TERRIBLE customer service, it can't fix the roads, it can't do anything on budget, it can't fix our schools, it can't take care of the veterans, it can't make the poor wealthy, it can't solve the economic cries, it can't make you safe, and it can't make you happy... yet you idiots continue to turn to it to solve your every problem.. Why? What is wrong with you people?
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Yes, there's a Social Security Trust Fund that's invested in T-bills. That just means that they've taken any surplus they had in the past and lent it to the Government, which spent it, and which promises to tax people in the future to pay it back. So when all of us Boomers start retiring and not dying off quickly enough, not only will the Social Security Tax on working people not be enough to cover the costs, but the Feds will have to start running a budget surplus to pay off the debt, instead of continually borrowing more like they did while we were working. So it's going to suck to be young and working, or old and collecting taxable interest on our savings.
Before Bush took power, we had a $5T national debt, because previous administrations didn't have the financial discipline to not run deficits even during boom years. Bush's Fiscally Responsible Small Government Republicans doubled that before the Crisis, and it looks like they're spending another $5T-10T on bailouts (though ostensibly they'll get some of that back.) The current total debt is about 1 US GDP, or about $50K/American.
And to the extent that us older people saved money in forms other than houses (oops), we'll be getting lower interest rates on what we saved than what I'd been planning on, because more of us will be competing to invest it in whatever businesses the younger people who are working are running. So it's going to suck to be old and not working. And because it's also going to suck to be young and working, those people aren't going to be buying $5 coffees that much, and Walmart only needs so many greeters, so obvious old-people jobs are going to be scarce.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
First, IAAL, take it for what it's worth. Second, by saying the following, I am in no way attempting to disparage the welfare state, or suggest that it is unconstitutional. In fact, there is plenty of case law suggesting it is. (Google "Lochner Era" and "economic substantive due process" if you want to find it.
That said, your reading of the Constitution is wrong.
The Preamble neither limits or grants any power to any branch of the Federal government. The Supreme Court has read it that way for the last hundred years. Source.
Article I Section 8 only gives the Federal government power to tax and spend for the general welfare:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Any taxing and spending must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution. The clause does not give Congress any power to legislate any law it wants for the common welfare. Source.
Misinterpreting the efficacy of the preamble is understandable, even I had to look that up. But as for Art. I Sec. 8, if you are going to try to interpret the Constitution, at least read it! The limitations of the power are right in the text.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
Certain people in power want you to believe competent government cant exist, but it does all over the world. Republicans love to sell you on this line because it helps their corporate masters make more money and provides an excuse for their corruption in office
Oddly, they're right in everything but the pivotal subject.
A bureaucracy invariably makes things more complex, and has an innate ability to screw things up. This is true if the bureau is public (see: DMV, INS, CIA, NASA) or private (see: Microsoft, GM, Ford, Citibank).
The pivotal question is "is this something best done by a single actor" -- such as, oh, licensing drivers on the road or deciding who's a lawyer and who isn't. If so, then it should be government. If not, then it should be private -- because you can always compete with a private entity, but you can rarely compete with the government.
("Rarely"? Yep. See: USPS v. FedEx/UPS)