Quoting from RawStory.com:
FCC proposes free Internet... as long as it's censored
05/29/2008 @ 7:47 pm
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators are considering auctioning a piece of the airwaves to buyers willing to provide free broadband Internet service without pornography.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing to auction an unused piece of 25 megahertz wireless spectrum, with the condition that the winning bidder offer free Internet access and filter out obscene content on part of those airwaves, a spokesman for the FCC said on Thursday.
"We're hoping there will be increased interest in the proposal; and because this will provide wireless broadband services to more Americans, it is certainly something we want to see," said FCC spokesman Rob Kenny.
Under Martin's proposal, the winner would be allowed to use the rest of the airwaves for commercial services.
The plan would address criticism from some consumer advocates, who say the government has not done enough to get broadband service into more households. It also could win praise from anti-obscenity watchdog groups.
"I think there are a number of features of the plan that would be attractive to various constituencies," said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Blair Levin.
But the plan got a lukewarm response from existing wireless carriers. The industry's chief trade group, called CTIA, said auction provisions such as the free-service requirement were too rigid.
"CTIA supports flexible auction rules that allow any and all entities to participate," the group said in a statement.
The winning bidder also would have to build out the system to serve 50 percent of the U.S. population within four years and 95 percent within 10 years.
Further details of the plan have yet to be worked out, but Martin's plan is expected to come up at the FCC's next meeting on June 12.
Martin's proposal is similar to a plan put forth previously by a start-up company called M2Z. Under that plan, which was not approved by the FCC, M2Z would have been given the spectrum at no up-front cost. It would have provided free service, generating revenue partly through advertising.
The 25 MHz spectrum at issue is not viewed as highly attractive to wireless carriers, unlike the 700 MHz spectrum auctioned by the FCC earlier this year. There has been little previous interest in it, aside from the M2Z proposal.
Now, being the house populist Leftist on the panel here, I'm pretty much in full support of providing anything that would open up Internet access to communities that are economically lacking.
The problem is: why does it have to be censored??
Don't end users already have means to filter out "objectionable" content at their end through filtering software, rating systems, and the like?? Why is there such a need to have the government (even through a private proxy) do the censoring for them??
Or is this just a ploy by the Bush FCC to win back both Christian Rightists (who would love to impose their biases on working and poor folk, and right-wing populists (who would love the idea of having a free public space to vent their spleen against the usual "liberal" enemies)??
And...would the "censorship" be limited mainly to sexual imagery or actions (similar to the filters used by public libraries to block out "pornography", which also end up blocking out lots and lots of other information that rightists might not think that the public should see)??
If this is what they mean by "free Internet"; then no thanks, I'd rather pay for mine. Remove those content restrictions and allow for a truly free Internet spectrum (but with reduced speed from the paid providers); though, and you may have something.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOr is this just a ploy by the Bush FCC to win back both Christian Rightists (who would love to impose their biases on working and poor folk, and right-wing populists (who would love the idea of having a free public space to vent their spleen against the usual "liberal" enemies)??
ReplyDeleteYeah, that sounds like it to me.
While I agree that the motives are probably just as you describe, there is a bit of good sense buried deeply in this idea somewhere.
ReplyDeleteNina and I have talked this over regarding the proposed .XXX domain, which we oppose as a way of ghettoizing adult content and therefore making it easier to repress by onerous regulation or outright prosecution.
However, the idea of a .fam domain that would be devoted exclusively to non-adult content might take some of the wind out of the sails of the "Internet is just a tool of pornographers" crowd. Relatively simple technology could be used to restrict Internet access on home computers to the .fam domain, either during certain hours of the day, without special passwords or altogether, thus killing off the contention that there is no way to prevent children from being exposed to Internet porn other than to remove porn from the Internet completely.
This would also place responsibility back in the hands of parents, where it belongs, and tie knots in the tails of those who insist that all media be dumbed down to pre-teen level so they don't have to pay attention to what their own kids are looking at.
As proposed in this form, the idea has no appeal at all, but reconstituted in a way that respects the rights of all and places the attendant responsibilities where they belong, in the home, is not without merit.
Quoting Ernest on his idea of a family friendly domain:
ReplyDeleteHowever, the idea of a .fam domain that would be devoted exclusively to non-adult content might take some of the wind out of the sails of the "Internet is just a tool of pornographers" crowd. Relatively simple technology could be used to restrict Internet access on home computers to the .fam domain, either during certain hours of the day, without special passwords or altogether, thus killing off the contention that there is no way to prevent children from being exposed to Internet porn other than to remove porn from the Internet completely.
This would also place responsibility back in the hands of parents, where it belongs, and tie knots in the tails of those who insist that all media be dumbed down to pre-teen level so they don't have to pay attention to what their own kids are looking at.
That sounds like a much more fruitful idea, Ernest....only concern I would have is that those who want to obliterate adult sexual speech could care less about how "family-friendly" the Internet should be or how a .kids or .fam domain could reduce exposure to adult material.....their goal is to simply wipe sexual material off the face of the earth. Merely having a family-friendly domain would not in any way dissuade them from that essential goal.
Also...there still is the issue of what content would be allowed under a .fam domain. Would it be more expensive than the existing .com and .net domains commonly used?? Who would regulate which kind of content would be allowed under these new domains...the major media companies?? The government?? And what's to prevent the same kind of political favoritism in issuing contracts for particular issue groups to use the .fam domain?? (Would the Christian Right groups simply use .fam as a tool for their own political agenda, for example??)
Either way, I'd still prefer that idea of a dedicated kid-friendly domain where kids do have a safe space to having the government heavily-handedly regulate every aspect of Internet content...and especially to wipe adult speech off the map.
Anthony
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteAll good questions with no easy answers. That's why it remains pretty much just a pipe dream for now. No federal agency could be trusted to administer such a domain free of political influence and corporate ISPs are likely to go for whatever type or source of content brings them the most money. We see how that plays out with the relentless barrage of advertising for junk food and junk toys on TV every Saturday morning.
As with so many promising ideas, the problem here is in implementation. I'm not sure how it could be done. And I certainly don't think it would put a stop to the relentless bashing of adult content on the rest of the Internet by the usual suspects. However, it would address some of their stated concerns in a reasoned fashion that might drive a wedge between porn-haters and conflicted liberals, which is going to be a major priority if we hope to preserve First Amendment rights for consenting adults in any medium.
There is much to consider here, but whatever alternative we might offer to the one proposed at the head of this topic would almost have to be better.
please add my blog to your link list! great blog!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete