FCC To Propose Free, No-Porn Internet Network

[dadaelus]

You would think that someone at the FCC would understand the concepts behind bandwidth and filters and their mutual dislike of each other. Porn & Bandwidth = Bacon & Eggs. (I mean that we have done so well in filtering out spam that I cannot remember the last time I received an offer from Nigeria.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2008/12/fcc_to_propose_free_no-porn_in.html?nav=rss_blog

In the remaining weeks of his tenure, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin will push for a free, no-porn wireless Internet network across the nation, according to the agency.

Martin is expected to put his proposal for the free Internet network on the agency's Dec. 18 meeting agenda despite criticism by wireless operators like T-Mobile, who say using the spectrum could interfere with their new high-speed data network. T-Mobile, a unit of Germany's Deutsche Telecom, spent $4 billion for nearby spectrum and has disputed a report by the FCC that rejected the firm's concerns of interference.

For Martin, however, the plan could dispel criticism he's taken over the country's fall in international broadband Internet rankings during his tenure and leave him with a legacy of potentially bringing more competition into the wireless industry. The wireless phone market is dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless and much smaller providers, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile.

"This initiative brings with it the promise of a free basic broadband service to hundreds of thousands of Americans who currently have limited or no access to the high-speed Internet," Martin said. "It is important that we find new and creative ways to make broadband services more accessible, reliable and robust throughout our nation and this initiative will help us meet that goal."

The free Internet service proposal would be part of an auction for a swath of airwaves with a requirement that one-quarter of the spectrum be used for free consumer use.

The winner of the auction could charge for a service on the remaining spectrum that could have faster speeds than the free service. The free service would have a filter to keep pornography and other material not suitable for children off the network, though adults could opt out of that feature.

Silicon Valley-backed M2Z Networks Inc. has pushed for the plan, with investors including Google funder Klein Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.

[hatepoppy]

The winner of the auction could charge for a service on the remaining spectrum that could have faster speeds than the free service. The free service would have a filter to keep pornography and other material not suitable for children off the network, though adults could opt out of that feature.
so it's not ''no porn allowed'' it's a "preferences" type deal? wtf does it mean opt out of that feature?

your title suggest no porn allowed. YOU SUCK!

[dadaelus]

It's the article title. Take it up with the Washington Post

[hatepoppy]

It's the article title. Take it up with the Washington Post
i was talkin shit. take it up w my dick.

[dadaelus]

You have some tweezers handy?


Now I'm talking shit.

[dadaelus]

To get back on target: Our city, which is not a large market, got tired of waiting for the promises of the local telcos and cable companies to get high speed access to homes and to provide wireless access to downtown. They partnered with a local ISP and created a municipal system that is not only fast but profitable. This, and listening to some GMF people bitch and moan about how their providers treat them, has made me sympathetic to the idea that Internet access should be a utility and that private/public partnerships are a possible tool to get that access out to small/rural communities.

Is anyone else getting access using a government created/backed internet system?

[BIG PIZZLE]

This actually may be a good idea, exept for the no porn part. It sounds expensive though and it may give everyone brain tumors. But still a good idea.

[Don Scrappy]

I would prefer to leave the wireless networks up to companies that compete with each other rather than leaving it to the government, they fuck up everything.

[hatepoppy]

I would prefer to leave the wireless networks up to companies that compete with each other rather than leaving it to the government, they fuck up everything.
but...free?

i mean i know it's not 'free', as itll be paid for by our taxes (unless its gonna be paid for by federal taxes, in which case it's all just make believe).

i dont see tmobil giving away free internet just out of good will.

[Don Scrappy]

but...free?

i mean i know it's not 'free', as itll be paid for by our taxes (unless its gonna be paid for by federal taxes, in which case it's all just make believe).

i dont see tmobil giving away free internet just out of good will.

I suppose if all you want is to surf the net like your on a wireless 56k then ya, free sounds pretty fucking good. Personally anything less than 1mb/s is unacceptable and I don't see the government having the capability to deliver the kind of network that a comcast or google can.

[hatepoppy]

I suppose if all you want is to surf the net like your on a wireless 56k then ya, free sounds pretty fucking good. Personally anything less than 1mb/s is unacceptable and I don't see the government having the capability to deliver the kind of network that a comcast or google can.
unacceptable? take that personally shit out of there, too, bc theyre not looking to give you anything.

its ppl without internet that im thinking about. its occasional casual users, not every day pirates and forum lurkers.

[dadaelus]

I would prefer to leave the wireless networks up to companies that compete with each other rather than leaving it to the government, they fuck up everything.

I know that competition is supposed to be a good thing and all but in most locations you tend to see a duopoly between the local telco and the cable companies. (I will leave wireless out of this thread although I have not seen a huge benefit out of their competition. The US us just starting to see the letters 3g much less understand what it means.) Each has been slow to go into areas where the population density is not at a certain level. (Although they scream bloody murder when there has been some pressure to create Wi-Max for local muni service)

In our case the when the telco and cable companies complained about the proposed municipal access system the utilities commission explained that they had several years head start and since they did not see the value of building infrastructure so the government stepped in and installed a fiber network that now services 16 cities. Now that it is established (and profitable) the companies are either paying for co-location access so that they can deliver their services over that network or are building their own infrastructure. Either way the people living there get access.

I am looking forward to seeing if the FCC becomes more pro-consumer in terms of access and net neutrality under a new administration.

[taters]

I think this is a good idea. As long as it didnt shut down existing pron. Net companies have been showing that they dont compete, they divide for years. Its the reason why people like me have to pay comcast for service and cant choose between them, TW Verizon, clearwire or quest etc. Theres no actual competition, and they know it, hence their constatnyl growing prices and constantly sinking service (remember the 'pay for speed' scam they were attempted a few years ago, that turned out not to be an ability to pay more for faster service, but rather they would retard service to those who paid regular).

The cable/internet companies are a prime example of when private interests dont work out the way they should via competition, and collude and squeeze money out of a public with no alternative. They are the oil companies of the digital market.

This could be the equivalent of analog Television (that needed no cable or pay service) many of us grew up with, when you didnt have to pay outrageous costs to greedy, shiftily run cable service providers to watch PDS, Community TV, and broadcast TV.

Besides, someone will figure out how to smuggle porn in.

[hatepoppy]

I think this is a good idea. As long as it didnt shut down existing pron.

This could be the equivalent of analog Television (that needed no cable or pay service) many of us grew up with, when you didnt have to pay outrageous costs to greedy, shiftily run cable service providers to watch PDS, Community TV, and broadcast TV.

Besides, someone will figure out how to smuggle porn in.
wow, tater and i see completely eye to eye on this one.

wanna make out, ******?

[riseabove!]

I am not ok with letting the FCC take control of the internets and if there was a public network, that is what would happen.

[Warden]

Screw wireless. I want a free 10mb hard line. Wireless is far to fickle in homes, especially older homes. My parents wireless fucking sucked and it was 25 feet away from their computer. To many beams, metal and junk in the way.

[Tar Heel]

I didn't read any of this, but this sounds like a horrible idea.

[hatepoppy]

its not like itll replace your internet. wheres the down side?

[Tar Heel]

No one should be subjected to an internet without porn. It's like bacon without the fat, cake without icing, ugly lesbians, or what happens to a MILF when they become a GILF. it's just not right anymore. It's just wrong. It would be like the OSUMike of internetz.

[hatepoppy]

No one should be subjected to an internet without porn. It's like bacon without the fat, cake without icing, ugly lesbians, or what happens to a MILF when they become a GILF. it's just not right anymore. It's just wrong. It would be like the OSUMike of internetz.
if youdve read it, youd know that the 'no-porn' is an option you can deselect.

ive already given who the fuck ever started this shits shit for a misleading title. he blamed the source liek a faggot.

[Gary_Busey]

My only concern is what this will do to our already shitty network infrastructure and limited bandwidth.

[Whiffleball]

I'm for it. As someone who lives out in the middle of buttfucking nowhere, I know how hard it can be to get good, reliable Internet service. And while there may be competition in more urban areas, here your choices are very limited. A lot of the time it's either Yahoo! SBC or Comcast or some podunk local company that couldn't find their way through a vacant lot with a map.

I am, however, skeptical over whether a government-administered Internet service for all would happen. Government-run services are usually only ascented to when the service is deemed too important to let the fickle forces of the free market handle it. And while the Internet has completely revolutionized our society, I am not sure we couldn't live without it in the same way we rely on electricity and gas.

[Kilgore]

I didn't read the article but why does it have to be porn free?

Libraries offer free book and are full of graphic literatural porn, and I'm pretty sure you can check out at least a few books that are visually stimulating too. Not to mention I know at some, if not most or all, libraries you can surf porn sites.


Censorship in all types sucks.

[Whiffleball]

I didn't read the article but why does it have to be porn free?

Libraries offer free book and are full of graphic literatural porn, and I'm pretty sure you can check out at least a few books that are visually stimulating too. Not to mention I know at some, if not most or all, libraries you can surf porn sites.


Censorship in all types sucks.

Agreed, but can't you see the moral crusaders claiming that this would essentially be government-subsidized porn if they didn't at least give the option of blocking nudity/sex?

[riseabove!]

government subsidized porn is actually the backbone of Obama's bail-out plan