FCC's Smut-Free Broadband Plan Goes Forward
Tests show that system won't interfere with other services....
FCC boss Kevin Martin and M2Z Networks' plan for a smut-censored free national wireless service
recently ran into opposition from T-Mobile, who claimed that the technology being used (Time Division Duplex (TDD)) caused interference. This claim was made despite the fact that T-Mobile has used this same technology extensively overseas, and was generally seen as a transparent effort to derail the project. The FCC has now come back with their testing results, and according to a press release
by M2Z, there is no interference threat:
"In the end, the tests showed time division duplex ("TDD") and frequency division duplex ("FDD") technologies can coexist in the 2.1 GHz band using the technical rules similar to those that M2Z has been advocating for over two years," said Dr. Paul J. Kolodzy, Chief Technical Consultant to M2Z and former FCC Senior Spectrum Policy Advisor who attended the tests in Seattle on behalf of M2Z.
Last Friday, FCC engineers confirmed those results with their full report
(pdf) stating the FCC's plan to auction off spectrum in the AWS-3 (2155-2180 MHz) band for a national, free broadband service should not have interference concerns. T-Mobile (and other incumbents) will still likely try to scrap this plan in order to avoid an additional competitor. Free speech advocates also are fighting the project, arguing that a government-sponsored filtered Internet project is unconstitutional. Should this project succeed, it would offer 384kbps free (content filtered) service and a $20-$30 3Mbps tier to 95% of the country in ten years.
Re: The internet is for porn!
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:Wow... and you must think homosexual men and women do not look at porn? WTH would porn have to do with the sexuality of someone running a company such as the one in question from this article? You sir, sound very smart with that comment.
It must be gay guys running the business because we all know the internet is used for porn (and the rest of the time myspace/facebook/facespace/mybook...ect)...and if they can't access porn on this internet then they will just go to tmobile.
Visit my homepage »thinkequality.net
Re: The internet is for porn!
said by tad2020:I did no know that, I always assumed that gay people are more objectionable to pornographic material. I guess I was wrong.
Agree, most of the lesbian or bi women I know watch more internet porn than me.
But I am sure we could both find surveys that prove both sides of this but netwire's comment is more ignornant than mine to say the least he defiantly doesn't sound very smart at all .
said by ISurfTooMuch:And in this case, even banning "obscenity" is too much for some folks, they want to cuss and watch the porn everywhere. Please note, this is a "safe haven" for the non obscenity groups, not the other way around. The obscenity oriented people have other areas that are available for their use, including most other services, even libraries have a section of computers that are open so that lame folks can get their jollies. Besides, blocking porn will have a beneficial affect on the link, less downloads to clog the system.
It doesn't matter whether the government runs it or not; they're offering up the spectrum for it. They're basically saying, "If you want the spectrum to build this, then you have to filter out protected speech."
The only thing the government can ban is obscenity. Even in broadcasting, there is a safe harbor period for indecent content. And considering that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet has more First Amendment protections than broadcasting, I'm betting that the courts will take a dim view of this scheme.
And yes, I agree that filters are not very discriminating, my weather station site is tagged as porn by many of them, and the true porn pushers are making changes as fast (or faster) as the blockers do.
I am waiting for the so called "Free Speech" types to come down on the wired providers that provide the same service and not allow the case to be bought off. So much for "Free Speech". A friend of mine who moonlights on one of the Church (one of the Baptist ones, I think) ISPs here in Utah said they had that happen. Some yo-yo threatened to sue because he could not get to a site that was deemed obscene by the group. They paid him off.
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
Re: Whining I don't think you are describing obscene content. Obscenity, on its face, is illegal, but content has to be judged by the Miller test in order to be deemed obscene. Normal, everyday porn does not fall into that category.
And I didn't mention it, but yes, you are right, filters make mistakes. So what is someone supposed to do when these filters block content they aren't supposed to block, such as a site discussing rape, breast cancer, or polirics? And exactly how far do we filter? Violence? Hate speech? Political extremists? Those advocating the relaxation of drug laws? Pro-gun sites? Anti-abortion sites that show dead fetuses? Sites discussing rape? Sites discussing sex education that show body parts? Sites advocating against the use of filters? Those have been blocked by filters in the past. Sites discussing homosexuality? Sites discussing breast cancer? They've also been blocked. Al-Jazeera's site? They support terrorists, right, or are they a news channel? Fox News? Some folks don't consider what they show as news any more than what Al-Jazeera shows. Cults? Who decides what is and isn't a cult, anyway? What about the Web site for the YFZ group, if they have one? They advocated child marriage, didn't they? Well, the state of Texas said so, but the courts disagreed. Sites depicting animal cruelty? As defined by who? PETA certainly has a broader definition than the ASPCA, but they believe in their definition just as fervently. Sites promoting xenophobia? As defined by whom? What if the government in office decides that opposition to global trade agreements is a form of xenophobia?
How far, exactly, do we go, and who gets to make that decision? What if I disagree with a particular site being blocked or not blocked? Who decides, and what if someone disagrees with that decision?
said by ISurfTooMuch:And the real point is (that many forget in pursuing their agendas), it is your choice to use it or to go somewhere else. If it does not get close to breaking even on the budget because of the restrictions you mention, then the money bags in congress will be more than happy to pull the money to give to their favorite charity, themselves.
I don't think you are describing obscene content. Obscenity, on its face, is illegal, but content has to be judged by the Miller test in order to be deemed obscene. Normal, everyday porn does not fall into that category.
And I didn't mention it, but yes, you are right, filters make mistakes. ........cut
I myself would probably not use it. But there are many who would jump at it. Screw them? or give them a chance? All philosophy aside, at least it is something the fat cats in what we call the incumbents are dragging their feet on, so maybe it will help a large class of people a bit. You and I probably will laugh at the real throughput, but it is better than dial up in many areas (personally I think the physics might be flawed, depending on the frequency band it ends up in).
I vote give it a shot and see where it goes, it is more valuable than bailing out the rich folk who made bad investment decisions in worthless paper (those who made wise decisions will not see anything and the super poor who are trapped in the crash will get nothing but the boot).
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
Re: We need this
said by DrModem:beats living in places like some of my friends where without this in 10 years the only internet avilable will still be 53kbps dial-up.
Because in 10 years, 3mbps is going to be dialup speed.
said by dnoyeB:How is it unconstituional? Only the FREE access is censored. How is that any different than say PBS not having any smut on it?
Of course its unconstitutional. Any private company could do this. The government can not. I expect if a democrat gets in office the FCC is going to loose its head really quick.
| |badtripI heart the East BayPremium
said by 88615298 How is it unconstituional? Only the FREE access is censored. How is that any different than say PBS not having any smut on it?
PBS is not run by the government.
Censorship is a slippery slope, however. If this is a US Gvmt project, IMO they should not censor content but instead provide free tools to end users so that parents may control what their children see on the internet. A simple logon page can display the tool's download/implementation information.