The proposal was scheduled to be debated and possibly approved by the FCC at a hearing on December 18th...but due to increased opposition, it's now been pushed back to after the inauguration, at least/
The story from the online Wall Street Journal:
What is particularly interesting is the opposition from the Bush White House....one would think that the Religious Right faithful (aka "the Base" of the GOP) would love the idea of imposing a porn-free Internet on the poor and working stiffs (no pun intended)....but on the other hand, the more "libertarian" and capitalistic wing probably wouldn't be so fond of having a government sanctioned "free" spectrum directly competing with their proprietary companies.WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin on Friday evening canceled next week's meeting at which the commission was scheduled to vote on a free Internet plan, after receiving a letter from key U.S. lawmakers asking him to hold off.
Sen. John Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.), and Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-Calif.), who will chair the Senate and House committees overseeing the FCC next year, earlier Friday sent a letter to Mr. Martin asking him to cease actions on controversial policy proposals.
Mr. Martin had proposed that the FCC vote Dec. 18 on rules for a sale of valuable airwaves that would have required the winning bidders to offer free Internet access to 95% of the country.
That item is opposed by the White House. Bush administration officials disapprove of spectrum auctions that impose conditions on the owners. Other critics have raised questions about whether the plan will work, noting that only one business thus far, M2Z Networks Inc., has offered a business model that includes free Internet.
Under Mr. Martin's plan, the free Internet proposal would have been smut-free, including a filter for pornography. Adults over 18 would have been able to opt out. Civil rights groups had raised questions about that idea, worrying about whether it would interfere with users' privacy and free speech.
Mr. Martin also wanted the commission to vote next week on a plan opposed by the cable industry that would have strengthened TV networks in negotiations about how they are carried by cable providers.
Both of Mr. Martin's proposals, if approved by the full commission, almost certainly would have been challenged, either in court or through the FCC's internal review process.
"We received the letter from Senator Rockefeller and Congressman Waxman today and spoke with other offices," said FCC Spokesman Robert Kenny. "In light of the letter, it does not appear that there is consensus to move forward and the agenda meeting has been canceled."
Mr. Kenny added that noncontroversial items on the agenda could still be approved by the commissioners on the five-member body without a meeting. For example, Martin had included changes to emergency 911 call rules and satellite interference rules on the meeting agenda.
The letter from Rep. Waxman and Sen. Rockefeller is just as interesting, since there was some interest in the original proposal from some prominent Democrats...but I guess that the combination of opposition from the major wireless providers and the civil libertarian groups was just too much.
Either way, I see it as a net gain...perhaps after Obama is sworn in, cooler heads will prevail and we can work on an alternative that offers increased and improved Internet access to those not currently affording it, but without the content restrictions imposed from above. (Filters and other means of addressing inappropriate and objectionable content imposed by end-users on their own computers and by parents on their own children, of course, get absolutely no opposition from me or any other fair-minded progressive.)
"(Filters and other means of addressing inappropriate and objectionable content imposed by end-users on their own computers and by parents on their own children, of course, get absolutely no opposition from me or any other fair-minded progressive.)"
ReplyDeleteActually, I think that filters are generally quite poorly implemented. They are often set up to filter out content that I'd say most "fair-minded progressives" would consider harmless, like information about the reproductive system.
They may be necessary evils in places like school libraries, sadly, given the many ways unscrupulous spammers try to trick absolutely anyone into clicking. But I think that's a rather regrettable state of affairs.
And I think that very often, the kind of people who use NetNanny type software are the sort who want a substitute for talking to their children about the Internet and the things on it, monitoring their kids' Internet use themselves, etc.
Also, do these parents know enough about their kid and their kid's technological savvy to know whether he can circumvent the filter easily? Are they engaged enough in their kid's life to know if it's totally useless anyway?
Yeah, not so sure that's "no opposition."
Perhaps it's that I'm not a progressive? :)
I'm not disagreeing at all with 'ya. Trin...but I was talking about the kind of filtering software that was installed by end users at their end, not those filters installed by ISP's at the behest of government and imposed on users.
ReplyDeleteI understand fully that such filtering systems are so arbitrary and can be easily beaten by motivated and knowledgable kids, too.
Stil, all in all, I'd much prefer having individual users maintain the right to have filters in their own programs, and to have ISP's have that option given to users, rather than have the ISP or the government do the censorship for them.
I'm not so down on the use of filters in libraries (especially public libraries), where they can block out useful as well as harmless information in the process of blocking out "porn"; but that's all the more reason why we should boost home Internet usage and affordability of access.
Inexpensive but unlimited content for all will beat this system of "free yet censored" + "uncensored but out of reacy" two-tier". Now free AND uncensored, though....that would be the best, but I'm not going to wait 50 lifetimes for that to happen.
Anthony