dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
FCC's Smut-Free Broadband Plan Goes Forward
Tests show that system won't interfere with other services....
by Karl Bode 09:16AM Monday Oct 13 2008
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:
quote:
"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.

view:
topics flat nest 

Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Charlotte, NC
kudos:1

I hope in 10 years speeds are better

If any indication from 10 years ago from today what speeds were like I really hope speeds adjust when this thing goes live. Also I bet it won't be 20 or 30 dollars it will be 40 or 50 dollars a month
--
My Blog:
»abanzai.animeblogger.net/
k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

The internet is for porn!

Tmobile is concerned about competition? 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.

And free speech advocates should be praising this not trying to turn it down, if you have a connection to the internet then you can easily use VPN or some sort of other virtual tunnel/encryption technology to hide yourself on the network (which would be cheaper than an ISP + VPN technology). This isn't rocket science people, and besides if it doesn't happen tomorrow, it will happen next year.

So wait, its not unconstitutional for my ISP to monitor my traffic (which a certain ISP with the name of com and ending with cast does do port scanning and monitoring which is probably highly illegal), but yet if the federal government wants to give the American people free internet, oh god its a federal crime. Go monopolies, just keep raising the rates! You know we like to pay you more of our money!

netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Shelby, NC
kudos:1

Re: The internet is for porn!

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

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.
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.
--
Visit my homepage »thinkequality.net

tad2020

join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

Re: The internet is for porn!

Agree, most of the lesbian or bi women I know watch more internet porn than me.
k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

Re: The internet is for porn!

said by tad2020:

Agree, most of the lesbian or bi women I know watch more internet porn than me.
I did no know that, I always assumed that gay people are more objectionable to pornographic material. I guess I was wrong.

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 .

RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1

Whining

The rulers in charge of the incumbents are afraid that too many people will like this new alternative and decrease the flow of cash into their pockets.

As far as the so called "free speech advocates" saying that this is unconstitutional, show me where it says the government can not do this? The only thing the government can not do at this point is to start this up and then say they are the only game in town, all others cease and desist. Plus they have to show at least close to break even or else a bought congress and senate will kill it.

Of course, a bit of cash to the appropriate congress and senate types could also get a law passed that says only the current incumbents can do anything anymore, ignoring the minor detail that it was the government who started the whole system they are making money off of.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: Whining

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.

RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1

Re: Whining

said by ISurfTooMuch:

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 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.

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.
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

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?

RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1

Re: Whining

said by ISurfTooMuch:

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
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 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.

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1

We need this

Because in 10 years, 3mbps is going to be dialup speed.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: We need this

said by DrModem:

Because in 10 years, 3mbps is going to be dialup speed.
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.

dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

unconstitutional

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.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: unconstitutional

said by dnoyeB:

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.
How is it unconstituional? Only the FREE access is censored. How is that any different than say PBS not having any smut on it?

badtrip
I heart the East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA

Re: unconstitutional

said by 88615298 See ProfileHow is it unconstituional? Only the FREE access is censored. How is that any different than say PBS not having any smut on it?
[/BQUOTE :


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.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

How is this broadband?

Didn't the FCC just redefine broadband as 768 kbps and greater? So how is 384 kbps "broadband"?

asdfdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

Get it built and then let them wrangle over free speech...

I don't particularly care for the requirement, nor would it be fair to accuse me of lack of concern about free speech, but it only applies to free service and the free service only has to represent about 25% of network capacity. Here is the wording:

"(1) That filters or blocks images and text that constitute obscenity or pornography and, in
context, as measured by contemporary community standards and existing law, any images or
text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents. For purposes of this rule, teens
and adolescents are children 5 through 17 years of age;
"

I see no reason to believe that "contemporary standards" will be developed that are drastically different from the norms of broadcast television. I think the claims that people won't be able to access information about wars, etc. are overblown.

At any rate we need alternatives to the cable/ilec duopoly that have extensive coverage and build out requirements so we don't end up with the incomplete build out of the present market.
I don't think the free speech issues should slow this down. Once it is built the free speech issues, over the free part of the network, can be sorted out.

arafey

@snet.net

Re: Get it built and then let them wrangle over free speech...

Ha ha, a 5 year old is a teen/adolescent now? Now, think of what's "harmful" to a 5 year old and imagine how many sites will be blocked.
wispalord

join:2007-09-20
Farmington, MO

omg

in 10years i just wont matter anymore, thats just to long of a window for nothing, and T-Mobile knows this.