×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Pitches Free, Bowdlerized Wireless Internet Access

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the so-really-we-don't-need-much-bandwidth dept.

Communications 298

Aidtopia writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing auctioning off an unused part of the 25 MHz spectrum on the condition that the winner provide free wireless Internet access. The proposal sets coverage targets that ramp up to 95% of the population within 10 years. The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content." I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

298 comments

Obscene is easy, its called fun (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592805)

Add anything that is not "politically correct", and it'll be filtered.

Thus, about 99% of all media.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (3, Funny)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592849)

I'll provide free internet and filter out everything that's not clear text and matching a library of 10 "known not obscene" words.

Only way to be sure

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593345)

Only way to be sure
Nuke it from orbit.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (4, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592945)

Admiral Jesus says "All aboard the Censor-Ship!"

Aaaaaaaaaand, cue Peter Griffin's 'Freakin FCC' song!

They will clean up all your talking in a menace such as this
They will make you take a tinkle when you want to take a p*ss
And they'll make you call fellatio a trouser-friendly kiss
It's the plain situation!
There's no negiotiation!
With the fellows at the freakin FCC!

They're as stuffy as the stuffiest of the special interest groups...
Make a joke about your bowels and they order in the troops
Any baby with a brain could tell them everybody poops!
Take a tip, take a lesson!
You'll never win by messin'
With the fellas at the freakin' FCC

And if you find yourself with some you sexy thing
You're gonna have to do her with your ding-a-ling
Cause you can't say penis!

So they sent this little warning they're prepared to do the worst
And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be co-erced
I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first!

They may just be neurotic
Or possible psychotic
They're the fellas at the freakin FCC!

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (-1, Flamebait)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593459)

The FCC are talking about providing free, nationwide wireless internet.. Damn them to hell!

Slashdot users in general, it seems, cannot distinguish between creator and creation. Bad things are created by bad producers, who will only ever produce bad things. Good things are created by good producers, who will only ever produce good things.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592979)

Most popular sites(news media, social networking) cater to idiots, and more idiots are better for government and botnets. Everyone wins!

On a more serious note, it may be a slippery slope towards great-wall style filtering. But, of course, there'll always be ways around it. Filtering is a silly idea.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593007)

Add anything that is not "politically correct", and it'll be filtered.

1. Encryption is mandatory over such a network

2. Encryption from source to target is also highly advisable

3. Who cares if they put filtering rules. If you want obscene content, you can get it no matter what.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593293)

Add anything that is not "politically correct", and it'll be filtered.

1. Encryption is mandatory over such a network

At 25 Mhz with a bandwidth of, what? 1 Mhz throughput will be 1 megabit per second shared with hundreds of users. Free wifi in the gigahertz range is already a joke. This system won't have the throughput for (decent) porn, encrypted or not.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (2, Interesting)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593341)

This system won't have the throughput for (decent) porn, encrypted or not.
Yeah but at least you can type f&*! expletives to slashdot without geting f*#$red.

Re:Obscene is easy, its called fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593217)

But it will still give me all the SSH and VPN connections I want. Nice!

Misspelled (2, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592825)

FCC Pitches Free, Bowlderized Wireless Internet Access... The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content.
You misspelled bastardized.

Re:Misspelled (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23592941)

FCC Pitches Free, Bowlderized Wireless Internet Access... The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content.
You misspelled bastardized.

No, he misspelled Bowdlerized [wikipedia.org].

For example, your original potty-mouthed post might be offensive to sensitive ears, and I've therefore taken the liberty...

You misspelled illegitimized

...of bowdlerizing it.

Either that, or I missed the ironic possibility of your post; that you, like me, regard the act of bowdlerization as an even greater offense than the use of the word "bastard". In which case, IHBT, IHL, and I'll HAND :)

Re:Misspelled (ot: mod funny) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593317)

If anything this guy's post is funny (not a troll)

Re:Misspelled (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593417)

If I still had mod points...

Bowlderize: To censor or alter an earlier writer's work.

Bastardize: Change something so that its value declines.

[-1 Redundant] Would be a more accurate moderation, most people know what bastardize means, not as many know what bowlderize means. Although bastardize is more ambiguous.

Censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23592853)

Well there goes half the internet

WHAT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23592857)

What good is the Internet with out the "obscene" stuff

Possible power grab? (4, Interesting)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592861)

I wonder if this is a less than subtle way of the FCC executing a power grab, first establish censoring on a free network, then start moving it to the current networks (although this would not be needed if the enough people use this as their "last mile", you just look at their traffic there).

Re:Possible power grab? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593035)

It was probably done at the behest of Big Networking, so that whenever people get uppity about the fact that the companies are not exactly dumping a whole lot of capital into improving and/or extending their services, they can point to this and say "just use that!", safe in the knowledge that nobody will want to use a slow, ad-filled, censored internet connection.

Re:Possible power grab? (2, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593045)

Doesn't the FCC have an equal time rule? They shouldn't be able to do this unless they they also open up a chunk of the spectrum only for porn.

Re:Possible power grab? (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593487)

first establish censoring on a free network,

They already do this. You can't broadcast obscene material on ABC, either. They even take it *beyond* obscenity there. Drawing the line at obscenity is a *liberalization* of current practice.

50 kHz spectrum at 25 MHz? (1)

Average (648) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592867)

Claude Shannon eyeing the, at most, 50 kHz suspiciously.

Re:50 kHz spectrum at 25 MHz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23592961)

Maybe it's for telnet or a sensor network? Or other extremely low bandwidth uses? ASCII porn anyone?

Re:50 kHz spectrum at 25 MHz? (4, Informative)

jcgf (688310) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593301)

I agree with your concern. If we assume an S/N ratio of 20db (about 3 S units on my HF rig or noise at S6 and signal at S9 which I consider a good copy) then Shannon-Hartley's theorem says that they will get at best 333kbps. I used the example calculation #1 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem [wikipedia.org] and just substituted 50kc for 4kc to get this.

Anyone disagree?

Re:50 kHz spectrum at 25 MHz? (4, Informative)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593347)

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin scheduled a vote on rules for another major spectrum auction, one that would encompass 25 megahertz in the 2155-2180 MHz advanced wireless services band and require the winning bidder to offer free broadband service under an aggressive build-out schedule.
The article linked above isn't nearly as good as this [rcrnews.com] one on the details of what spectrum is actually on the block here

No: 25MHz spectrum at 2.155 GHz !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593431)

Not only is the original article extremely vague, it's also completely wrong (thank you journalist without a clue, but you better stick to reporting local tea parties).

25Mhz bandwidth at 2.155 GHz

creators pitch free newclear powered initiative (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23592869)

as though we had other choices.
conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is WINDing DOWn now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Definition of "obscene" (4, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592871)

I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
Tell me who'll be in The White House and I'll give you an answer.

Leave it to the Republicans (2, Funny)

gambolt (1146363) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592907)

to place restrictions on private industry

Republicans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23592963)

Both parties place very heavy restrictions on the private industry.

That's what the government does. They meddle.

I wouldn't mind this! (2)

EverStoned (620906) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592917)

Give me a tube, and I'll show you how to shove pornography and MP3s down it. Bring it on!

Re:I wouldn't mind this! (5, Funny)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593047)

High-temperature female displays well-hydrated feline! Amazing pseudoadults with brobdignagian dorsal features! Well-matched pairs engaging in close contact!

Re:I wouldn't mind this! (2, Interesting)

smclean (521851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593167)

JvTWeN4VZrXRC9i9Behav 3zIXBbTvYPYJvTWeN4VZr Wn2+FSZbK+gA3l5I6Zv4r YK2hqwPTNNjuOJu38g2Vk /5paEG5UxddVttkAvn0m/ k4w1bpDZ7trSImM07a8SC tTtFDrY6lo8cRc0wP1h8O 4TT884J30vVKBvkNM==

Obscenity has a clear meaning (5, Interesting)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592943)

I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.

In the US, 'obscene' has a clear legal meaning: material that meets the three-pronged (I said 'prong,' huhuuhuh) test established in Miller v. California:

1. 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Such material isn't protected speech. I think it should be, but there you go: it's hardly surprising that the FCC doesn't want it on a freely-accessible broadcast network. It's an infinitely more reasonable position for them to take than if they were demanding that providers filter "indecent" material, which is a) protected speech and b) has no strict legal definition.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593023)

"3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

so no Bible then? tempting....

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593161)

I know you are trying to be funny or whatever but even if you don't think the Bible contains a single fact, the fact remains it is a book of stories. More then that they are some of the oldest stories we might consider part of modern Western Civilization. They more or less lay out what society is as we understand it today. Christian or otherwise to sugest the Bible does not represent artistic, political, and scientific value(even if only the social and political science aspects are verifable) makes you appear pretty stupid.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593447)

Before calling anyone stupid, you might check what you are defending. We're gonna troll this into another religion debate, but here goes.

literary: maybe, but no more than any other historical document. But I can accept your argument here.
artistic: nah. I don't know what was artistic about the bible.
political: religion has done nothing to help our society. Politicians fake sincere religion just to get elected. Religions make laws based on ghost stories. this section could go on forever...
scientific: ? The earth is 6000 years old, huh?

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (1)

FiestaFan (1258734) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593483)

I believe your post lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value and I have reported you the proper authorities.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (2, Informative)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593039)

I can't give a definition, but I'll know it when I see it! [wikipedia.org]

What's interesting is that, by obscenity laws, porn would be fine. It really would not be hard for a provider to say "When we're made aware of material that's clearly obscene or illegal, we'll take technological steps to filter it."

But like pirate radio, they will never be able to stop it.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593095)

In the US, 'obscene' has a clear legal meaning: material that meets the three-pronged (I said 'prong,' huhuuhuh) test established in Miller v. California:

1. 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
You call that clear?

Besides, any honest attempt to comply would be so much trouble to implement they should give the spectrum away for free.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593539)

You call that clear?

Yes. A work must meet *all three* criteria, not just one, which means obscene material is few and far between. There was one case where a store owner was on trial for selling obscene movies, until the store's receipts showed that most of the customers were people in the local community, which meant that what he was selling no longer met criteria #1.

Again, obscenity isn't protected speech. The FCC gets to regulate broadcast networks. You *already* can't broadcast obscene material on radio or television (not cable, not satellite, free *broadcast* television), a ham radio, a walkie-talkie, or anything that falls under their jurisdiction, and court cases show that they can go after even *indecent* material, not just obscenity.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593177)

That "test," unfortunately, still flies in the face of the first amendment.

But then, what good would government be if busybody groups couldn't use it to interfere needlessly in the lives of others.

need more definitions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593383)

1. Average person in which community? Who determines what an average person would think?

2. define "patently offensive" -- to who? This hypothetical "average person"?

3. who determines (and how) "merit" -- especially something as objective as literary or artistic merit?

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593391)

Heh. Funny where those priorities are. Sex is obscene, but by that definition, torture followed by bloody beheading would be just fine.

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (1)

FiestaFan (1258734) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593423)

3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

You think thats clear? Who decides what has or lacks serious artistic value? Does Mein Kampf? Does Catcher in the Rye? What about the US Constitution?

Re:Obscenity has a clear meaning (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593499)

While filtering obscene material isn't so legally unreasonable (since it's not considered protected speech, as you mentioned), it is _economically_ unreasonable. After all, the FCC is asking a company to:
a) Pay them for the spectrum
b) Provide free internet
c) Filter content

While 'a' and 'b' aren't so outrageous, they do make the enterprise somewhat risky. (Think of it this way: the government will sell you land as long as you'll build and run a public library, though you only need to lease the books.) However, they're also asking that the company filter the internet. That means hardware cost and significant liability. If you are required to filter the net and something sneaks by, that's grounds for a lawsuit that would quickly become class action. And, of course, you'd have violated your agreement with the FCC and would risk them revoking your license.

Sign me up...

Re:Obscenity ONLY has a clear meaning if... (1)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593549)

Unfortunately the FCC has 'dynamically' enforced 'obscene' content over over regulated airwaves before. What it amounts to legally is that they determine something falls under their regulations, then they act on it. While I do not believe they typically have ulterior motives, it is true that they are not always correct.

This means that the 'offending' party would need to challenge their decision in court (and win), in order for their applied definition of obscenity to either;

a) be found innacurate because society doesn't feel the item in question was obscene, or

b) it actually was obscene

While I feel obscenity laws have a place in our society, I promote the idea that those laws should be enforced by a jury of AVERAGE citizens -- not some kind of religious ideologists that only rule (ie. judge/jury/executioner) from their perspective.

Oblig. Family Guy (2, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#23592975)

The bloody song would take too long to type out, but I'll say them now, while we still have a chance:
  • piss
  • fellatio
  • penis

Re:Oblig. Family Guy (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593067)

Searching Google and cutting and pasting takes too long?

BTW, If I ahdn't read it in an earlier post, I woudn't ahve known what the hell you were talking about.

Now onto another subject...naw, that will take to long to type so:
Bananas
Hook
Penis

HI TEST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593021)

I know I'm middle class /
But I'm quick to curse the cash /
That makes us trespass /
Put on the gas mask

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

I think I had the same reaction as everyone had.. (2, Interesting)

TRAyres (1294206) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593027)

At first, reading the title, there was amazement! An FCC chairman, pitching FREE internet?!?!

Then there came reality: no 'obscene' content.

What the fuck is this, 1953? Hey, while we're at it, why don't we go beat up some Commies and re-segregate the South, then fine anyone who says dirty words on these gosh darn 'radios'??

Thats like giving someone a car with no wheels, engine, gas tank, doors, windows, seats or seat belts, and wondering why nobody wants your gift.

Essentially this amounts to severe packet filtering or an Orwellian 'approved' list of websites. Whats worse, is who's doing the filtering, and how deep? I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles that would classify as 'obscene'.

Fuck this. I can't wait for the day when I can go buy an open source mesh broadcast tower, put it in my house, and get a truly FREE internet.

The FCC, just like the patent office, hasn't been able to cope since the 90's. When are we going to fix this broken shit, and WHY are all of our government offices run by morons? (As far as I know - I apologize to any /. readers who run a government office and are intelligent and make good decisions).

Re:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593259)

Thats like giving someone a car with no wheels, engine, gas tank, doors, windows, seats or seat belts, and wondering why nobody wants your gift.
Bullshit. It's like giving someone a car with no knobs on the radio so they can't turn it on unless they use some pliers. Pretty much everyone on this forum could easily bypass the restrictions placed on this network, so what's the big deal? Let the restrictions comfort the old folks and help parents protect their children from content they don't want them to see. For those people who think that parents shouldn't shield their children, fine, but let the parents who want to shield their children do it as long as they're not breaking the law.

Your whole post is one big overreaction. The government mandates the project, therefore it can't allow obscene material into it. If you don't like it, vote for people who want obscene material to be freely viewed by minors, but don't hold your breath for the day when a majority of Americans feel the same way.

Re:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (2, Interesting)

TRAyres (1294206) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593399)

Hah! I never thought I'd see a 'Protect the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN!' argument on Slashdot!

Obscene material is a joke. The FCC tried to regulate 'bad language' as obscene on the radio. Then they tried to do it on TV. They fail, and fail, and fail, yet they try again.

What you essentially posted is that the Government can't back free speech because free speech contains obscenity. The constitution has something to say about that.

Why do you want the government raising your children? Why don't you watch what they listen to, or monitor their use of the computer? You're probably the same kind of person who blames TV when their kid learns something vulgar, when in reality the kid learned it from some other kid at school.

Trying taking responsibility for what your kids are doing, and let the government worry about free speech, not obscenity.

And your red herring arguments get you nowhere here.

Re:I think I had the same reaction as everyone had (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593527)

why don't we go beat up some Commies
Thats just silly - everyone knows that there aren't any commies left (except the ones that are our very good friends in China).
The foreigners we gotta beat up now are terrrists. Which are a lot like obscenity now that I think of it, cause ive no idea what the hell a terrrrist is, but I know one when I see one.

The good the bad, and the ugly (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593053)

So far everyone has been focusing on the bad - but let me break it down -
The Good: Free Internet access over an add supported public channel - at what should be fairly good speed - that alone is a significant move in the right direction toward improving access for rural areas, and reducing the broadband divide
The Ugly: One Company - gets to try to make this work. I find this troubling only for one reason - it is clear now that ISP's have no problem filtering the internet not just for obscene content, but for any content they don't particularly care for (Comcast and BT?) - regardless of whether it is on one protocol or another. And whats more, they will not be challenged when they engage in such practices.

Federal Cencorship Commission (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593057)

I suppose this is nothing new. They are the ones who have imposed fines on tv broadcasters for obscenity in the past, aren't they? It would be nice if they actually focused on communications instead of just the opposite.

Albatros, get your albatros! (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593081)

I would love to spend money at auction so that I could spend money to provide free Internet access on which I had to spend money to filter obscene content and face paying more money if those filters don't work. Sign me up!!

Re:Albatros, get your albatros! (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593299)

From TFA - they were gonna give the spectrum away to a company for no upfront costs.

Re:Albatros, get your albatros! (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593429)

From TFA - no. They are comparing this to a similar plan, which has no upfront costs.

25MhZ of spectrum... at 2.1Ghz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593089)

The story is somewhat inaccurate. It should read that the FCC is considering auctioning off 25Mhz of the 2.1Ghz band, not "an unused piece of 25 megahertz wireless spectrum". An earlier Engadget story [engadget.com] has a little better description of the actual RF band in question.

Considering 802.11 uses 20Mhz channels, a 25Mhz allocation doesn't sound all that interesting.

Auction? (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593111)

Auction off? Doesn't me mean solicit contracts? No corporation is going to be able to "freely" provide internet access AND filter all the content on the web. They'd have to pay someone to do that, and the leftover bandwidth in the spectrum just ain't gonna cut it.

Oh America (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593115)

Waging imperialist war? Eh. Suspending basic human rights for people due to their political, religious, or ethnic affiliation? Meh. Selling weapons to sworn enemies during wartime? Let's hold a congressional thing and exculpate the president and anyone else involved, just because.

TITTIES??!! We've got to do something! Call the press! Notify the local authorities! LOOK OUT! IT'S A VAGINA! NOOOOOoooooooooo.....

Boulderize? (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593127)

Bowdlerize seems pretty likely, but isn't it at least possible that the FCC is turning that part of the spectrum into a boulder?

Email the FCC! (3, Informative)

TRAyres (1294206) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593149)

On the FCC front page, there is a link to all the members of the board, and their emails.

I say we email them.

Lets turn the ./ effect upon our government, and see if maybe, just maybe, we can convince them not to make the same dumb ass mistakes they make every 30 years trying to censor new formats.

Wrong Wrong Wrong (5, Informative)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593181)

This isn't the 25MHz spectrum, it's a 25MHz block of the 2.1GHz spectrum. Realizing that makes this story make a whole lot more sense. There's no possible way this would work in the HF range.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593421)

Wow, that's right. I figured the title was correct and they were pllanning a low speed text only network. I forgot this is the Internet and there are no editors.

Internet rendered useless...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593185)

I guess they will be blocking all search providers then. A simple Google image search of will deliver the goods. I suppose they could block the links provided in such a search, but you still have a nice contact sheet to look at for your jollies.

Broadcast vs. Choice. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593229)

I can see the FCC wanting to censor material because some people are way too sensitive about their repressed desires but that only makes sense in a broadcast model where everyone receives the same material. Internet by its very nature is fractured and each individual makes their own choices in what content they would like to receive. I don't care if my neighbor is pulling down midget latex whipping gross porn next door - thats an adult in their private home and I shouldn't have a say in what happens behind their closed door.

Re:Broadcast vs. Choice. (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593443)

I don't care if my neighbor is pulling down midget latex whipping gross porn next door - thats an adult in their private home and I shouldn't have a say in what happens behind their closed door.

'Some' people would have a problem with paying for their neighbor to do that.

terrorist identification handbook revised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593233)

it now includes republicans, southern baptists & freemasons, as well as well as the already known to be greasing the axis of evile greed/fear/ego based corepirate nazi glowbull warmongerers. take heed.

But you know what will happen... (2, Insightful)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593235)

People that don't know better will be like: "Hey filtered is better than nothing. Can't bitch about free."

The christians will say: "Not only is this a great product, but free as well. Plus they will filter out all the smut... HOW WONDERFUL!"

1% will say: "Fuck that. Don't tell me how to surf."

And the rest don't give a shit. I give this a better than average chance of going through.

Bandwidth and Propagation (2, Interesting)

giminy (94188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593251)

I think that there are two pretty major flaws with this idea:

1) Bandwidth. 802.11b uses 22Mhz of bandwidth for each of its channels. There is not 22Mhz of unallocated bandwidth at 25Mhz. I'm sure that compression techniques are better now than when 802.11 stuff was defined. However, looking at the FCC allocation chart [doc.gov], there isn't much unassigned bandwidth near 25Mhz. A few Mhz here and there, unless they're considering usurping ham radio and maritime bands and otherwise kicking people off of frequencies. I'm not sure what they're considering "unused". Someone with more knowledge of on data compression via radio techniques might chime in :).

2) Propagation. 25Mhz is right around 12 Meters, which the hams and DX CB radio folks will know can propagate hundreds and even thousands of miles, depending upon ionospheric conditions. Take the bandwidth problem above, and multiply it by the fact that the precious little slice of bandwidth you get might be stomped on by everyone in the US during peak sunspot activity. This is likely the reason that mobile carriers aren't interested in these frequencies.

I'm pretty sure this is a loser idea. If someone knows more than me, I'd love to learn more about this stuff, though.

Reid

Obscene Defined (2, Insightful)

murphyje (965004) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593323)

Why is everybody confused? The FCC already has legally definitions for "obscene" and clearly, since they're the ones auctioning off the frequency block, they'd be the ones deciding the definition of obscene. If you're still confused, here's how it works: Watch TV. Whatever they can do there, they can do on an obscenity-filtered wireless service. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html [fcc.gov]

Everyone in the world should Block 38.107 and 129. (1)

XHIIHIIHX (918333) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593335)

Everyone in the world should Block 38.107 and 129.47 at their firewalls. I did years ago when these bastards started feeding me bad hashcodes for the bob dylan torrent I was downloading.

It's spelled "Bowdlerize"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593361)

Look it up. Come on, people.

This would not be a broadband service (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593367)

Did they say "25Mhz". If so then this is not a high speed system. We are talking kilo-bits per second at best not megabits. So this would not be a broadband service It would be like a slow dial up speed. Good for email and text based pages but not audio/video content.

25 Mhz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593451)

I think not, can you say noise? Anyone that has used 10 meters can tell you during the sunspot high the skip is so bad that it can make local contacts almost impossible. You would have a guy in Moscow trying to connect to a hot spot in Dallas.

Why so negative? (2, Insightful)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593463)

I know the FCC does some strange things at times. And I know that the censorship isn't exactly what I'd pick for my regular internet connection.

However, I know that when I'm working from my laptop while waiting at the mechanic, it'd be nice to have ANY cheap / free internet connection. $60/month for unlimited internet through the cellphone networks is too expensive for my needs...

"Obscene" (1)

iconic999 (1295483) | more than 5 years ago | (#23593481)

"I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use." Probably the stuff that's on the porno rack at your liquor store.

*Bowdlerize* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23593485)

not bowlderize.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...