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)."

13 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. Tax Dollars by y86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Tax Dollars by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You ever eat food that didn't kill you ? (FDA), or drink water? How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

      Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have.

      Sure there is a lot of waste in government, but you get a lot more benefit then you are giving them credit for.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Tax Dollars by viking099 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obligatory Monty Python quote:
      Reg:
              All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

    3. Re:Tax Dollars by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, and then once the FCC has effectively made internet within the US a public resource, they can start censoring it with the same crazy arbitrary rules they use for broadcast TV. No thanks, I think I'd like to stick to the private model.

    4. Re:Tax Dollars by LandDolphin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is pretty much their goal. But, that's fine as long as you still have the option to purchase unfiltered internet from the current ISPs.

      Filtered Internet is better then no internet for a lot of people.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    5. Re:Tax Dollars by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

      Yeah, I'm sure all 2 million of them are way too dangerous to be let out on the street. No, this money is wasted housing petty criminals and drug users, while Bush and his crew, and let's not forget the CEOs of every investment bank in the country are free.

      More people are arrested for marijuana possession in this country than EVERY OTHER VIOLENT CRIME COMBINED! Is that what you call a good use of tax payer resources?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Tax Dollars by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it really isn't.

      Free filtered internet means that all the people paying for a broadband line to read email, and occasionally browse the web, can now do so for free. Without the ~95% of customers who underuse their connections subsiding the cost of the ~5% who actually need broadband, ISPs will have to increase prices dramatically.

      The end result is that only the financially well off will have access to anything the government feels like censoring on their network. And that's making the optimistic assumption that the censorship stops with government networks, and isn't extended, voluntarily or not, to the big ISPs.

      What will happen to political speech when that happens? Given what we've seen of these kinds of filters thus far, they tend to pick up on key words, block entire sites for single pages, and generate a lot of what a reasonable person viewing a site would consider false positives. Will any site the agitates for the rights of sex workers, or transsexuals, or gays risk being marked as sexual content, and blocked from the vast majority of american voters? Will any site that discusses a hate crime risk being labeled as hate-speech, and excluded as well? How much harder will it be to get a major party to take up such causes in that kind of environment?

      I think that free ubiquitous basic internet access is a great idea, that could do a lot of good for a lot of people and the economy overall.
      But I'd gladly forgo it, if the cost is freedom of speech on the internet.
      Any government supported network needs to be an unfiltered. Even forcing people to register with the government as adults to receive an unfiltered connection is far too burdensome, in that it destroys users' privacy and any potential anonymity for whistleblowers and the like. Any parents who want to restrict their kids' browsing have plenty of options to do so on their own devices, without unconstitutionally and unduly compromising adults' freedom of speech.

      --
      "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  2. Could be a great idea! by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Obviously you can't be looking for 10mbps connections to watch streaming video and download isos. But think about a simple internet connection that allows for basic web browsing, email use, IM texting, etc.

    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.

  3. USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn't by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously folks, can't the greatest power in the world today do some form of prioritisation? Free internet access, brilliant a free utility, a basic fundamental right of every american guaranteed by the constitution and our founding fathers.

    Free Healthcare of course is a communist plot to subvert the country and destroy everything America stands for.

    Free Healthcare should be a right, the internet should be a utility just like power and water... something that you pay for.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. panopticon by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    from TFA:

    a plan to offer free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans

    To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.

    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
  6. Re:And while I highly doubt this... by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Free internet? by bladesjester · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.