News
Comments
Print
Email
Congressmen Rally behind Free, Porn-free Internet Proposal
Posted 08/14/08 at 10:02:28 AM | by Pulkit Chandna
Two Congressmen (Democrats) have come out in support of the proposed auction of spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Services 3 region. The spectrum can only be used for providing porn-free wireless broadband throughout the country sans any access fees, according to the proposal. The two Democrats, Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) professed their support for the proposal in a letter they sent to Federal Communications Commission’s chairman Kevin Martin.
They admonished the detractors of the proposal for objecting to the AWS-3 spectrum auction. The two Congressmen don’t believe that the TDD technology that will be used for the Pan-American wireless broadband network will jeopardize services in the AWS-1 region. T-Mobile had objected to any auction in the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum range as it holds AWS-1 spectrum. The duo also supports the proposed auction as it is worried about U.S loosing the broadband-penetration wars to other countries.
Free Wireless broadband certainly seems a step in the right direction. However, the question is whether suppression of pornographic material would encroach upon the right to freedom of speech.
Image Credit: Katara
Comments Print Email I remember in the 90's
Submitted by jasonla on Tue, 2008-10-14 07:59
I remember in the 90's rumors the post office wanted to tax emails, this not being a rumor is a violation of our rights i don't think the internet should be moderated by government or service providers. Give me my bandwidth that i pay for and let me use it to browse what i want porn included. If we start block access to porn how soon will it be before we turn into china and moderate everything that we can see on the net. Get a grip go get laid go call some london escorts and get some and maybe you'll relax a bit. Remember real sex on HBO all those game shows other countries have sex related there ads for average products with half nude women etc. Why are we one of the few countries that has such a problem with porn or sex when it really comes down to it.
Submitted by van_helblaze on Wed, 2008-08-27 16:09
I did a paper on internet censorship, last year, this is illegal, the US government cannot censor the internet due to the first ammendment.
Did your paper include
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Wed, 2008-08-27 17:41
Did your paper include comma splices and absence of proper noun capitalization as displayed in that comment?
On less of an obnoxious note, I'm really not so sure that the ever popular First Amendment argument really applies here. The government is proposing to provide an alternative Internet, not regulate the one that ISPs currently provide access to (that is, the one we're currently on). In fact, if you think about it, if the government wanted to provide this free service and decided to instead provide access the very same Internet (with no censorship), it would likely be a total disaster. As long as speeds weren't abysmal, it would absolutely destroy all the private ISPs. None of them can compete with free. Do you really want a government-controlled monopoly in the Internet access sector? Yeah, me either. So as far as I'm concerned, let the government censor their own Internet and let the rest of us have our own in that funny little free enterprise system that the vast majority of us are pretty fond of.
Just to clarify again here... I do NOT think the government should censor the Internet for all of us. If the government wants to try to help out with the terrible broadband penetration here in the US, I'm all for it. Remember, this is supposed to be targetting folks who either can't afford broadband at the present costs or (even worse) broadband isn't available in their area yet. For them, isn't something better than nothing? This would be totally different if the government were trying to say that they were censoring what I was using. In that case, the government would be taking away from me, and I'd probably be a little upset. Again, as it stands, I think this proposal is going to help bring broadband to folks that normally wouldn't have it. Do those folks have the same right to browse porn that we do? Sure, but for whatever reason they don't have any other means of access, so it's a moot point, imo.
Submitted by Ritful on Sat, 2008-08-23 15:49
Interesting.
MArie Never said "Let them eat cake." BTW
well, if this internet were
Submitted by nebbuchanezzar on Sat, 2008-08-23 00:42
well, if this internet were made to be in a position of not being feasible as a sole internet access method, so it didnt take away from current ISP's, it should be fine... that way, you have free Wi-fi everywhere [censored, yes. but free...] and i would have no problem with that...honestly, i think it should be encouraged that any connection owned by the government [federal, state or otherwise] should be filtered, it isnt right for people to be using the free city wi-fi to be surfing porn in public anyways...but back to the subject, as long as this in no way affects personal connections, it would be fine by me...if this goes through, and people start getting the idea they can censor my conection, or filter it, i will be severely pissed off... but i by no means would mind having a free alternative when out and about if i need to google, or check my email or something...
http//folding.extremeoverclocking.com/sigs/sigimage.php?u=150233
How do they intend to
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Mon, 2008-08-18 22:30
How do they intend to control the internet? Will they penalize people that visit porn sites or will they forcibly shut down porn sites? Or will they use a filtering system? Any way it sucks. If they deny porn they can deny anything. Next thing will be torrent filtering and then the sky is the limit. The people er the users will only have access to what a few law makers want us to see. The news as they tell it. They will decide what is ok for the public to see on the internet. With free broadband the subscription internet services will quit offering internet service due to dramatically reduced sales. They wont be able to compete with free and will be forced to close their doors or change their service to a completely different kind of product.
So free broadband is good and bad. If you work, own stock or run an ISP company your screwed. You will lose you livelyhood to the government that is sworn to protect and represent your interests and the constitution of the United States. That's right your interests. They promise you that they will protect your interests to get you to vote for them. That's how they get ellected to office.
But if your poor or don't have personal interest in any ISP then it's a win but then again we are making the government the provider of the internet and the government is made up of people. These people are power hungry they believe that they know what is in everyones best interest. Therefore they will eventually realize that they can do anything as long as they believe that they are doing it in your best interest. Sounds like Marie Antoinette telling us that we can eat cake.
Submitted by Mungo on Mon, 2008-08-18 18:58
and a pot in every chicken
Submitted by Nogoodname on Fri, 2008-08-15 10:40
I would say that this is a great idea if someone came up with a way to combine that free wifi with paid cable, dsl or something like that. because then you can boost broadband connection speed then not watching porn (downloading a 1.5 free gb game maybe). hopefully someone will do that because so far i haven't heard of something like that.
Dear Congress:
Submitted by horzo on Fri, 2008-08-15 10:20
Shut up, you idiots. Stick to things you actually understand.
Submitted by nsvander on Thu, 2008-08-14 17:34
I hate to say it but it is the truth. The porn industry drives a lot of the innovation that has and will in the future take place on the internet. Seems that when ever there is a new streaming format, or HD movie streams, HD on demand etc. The porn industry is the first to take advantage of these features. If the features are liked by the masses they seem to become mainstream, if they dont work you really dont seem much of them. I think that if you do not allow that content your a certain branch of the net, then it will become stagnant.
Also I think the government has there hands in too much of our privacy already. Allowing them to filter content on the internet because they dont want it there, is a bad idea, and smells a lot like China to me.
Most intriguing but
Submitted by opulent_rigs on Fri, 2008-08-15 15:15
they are not talking about proscribing the sale of porn altogether - just on the free broadband service. Also, with all the talk about digital distribution upstaging optical media por industry might not have anyrhing to push.
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:27
I've never heard that idea before - that porn drives innovation in terms of media quality or delivery. It's an interesting prospect...
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Thu, 2008-08-14 16:42
Yeah, like everyone says, I'd love to see how they're going to keep it "porn free." First of all, you have to clearly define what porn is to even begin to think about doing that. Just how much skin is too much skin? Ignoring the lack of feasibility...
Muerte down there put it in a way that made me think: "The government is the ISP and the payment is the conditions they set for the use of this service." You know, that's really not a bad way of looking at it, imo. As long as private enterprise is still allowed to provide service, I have zero problem it. Now, if the government wanted this free WiFi to be the ONLY option and they were censoring it, then I might have issues. But the way I see it, they're not really encroaching on freedoms in that you would still be able to pay for access the free and complete Internet if you want. Some might argue that this excludes those who can't afford to pay monthly rates for broadband access, but those same people were being excluded in the first place. At least this free version is something, right?
There are cases of a government-provided service existing in relative harmony with other private enterprises in the same sector. The case that comes to my mind is USPS for shipping versus UPS, FedEx, et al. This is slightly different than USPS in that the free WiFi isn't going to try charge what lets them "break even", but instead is going to restrict usage as they choose, but I still think free Wifi and broadband providers as we know them now can co-exist. Heck, this free version might even encourage the private ISP's to justify their "high costs" by being "totally open" with their access. **looks across the room at ComCast with a nasty look on his face**
Submitted by Russtynailz on Thu, 2008-08-14 14:16
Hee Hee Hee... he said penetration! :)
Submitted by opulent_rigs on Fri, 2008-08-15 15:09
I hope it won't have a debasing impact on anyone, hopefully :)
Penetration: The act (by a man) of inserting his (content suppressed) into the (content suppressed) of a woman
Oh! Lord, the system is working.
Even ignoring free speach
Submitted by Cache on Thu, 2008-08-14 11:46
Even ignoring free speach laws... who would be responsible for monitoring this? What are the consequences of 'breaking the law'? Is dirty speach or naughty pictures between a husband and wife really a threat to the country? And ultimately it doesn't matter. The necessary level of policing it would take to keep this 'porn free' would give even the most robust anti-porn activists a reason to pause and reconsider.
Morals never trump money.
Also, can I get a copy of a bigger, unaltered pic that you used at the top?
Submitted by opulent_rigs on Fri, 2008-08-15 15:23
unless enjoined otherwise through a legislation. So I don't think one would be punished if the supposedly porn-free internet has loose ends and users actually surf porn sites or access porn content by exploiting such loopholes. You can not be legally punished. Of course, if you willingly expose such loopholes and spell out exploits then you will be punished. That is my view of the situation being a law student.
this will work
Submitted by nedwards on Thu, 2008-08-14 10:17
There's no such thing as a porn-free internet.
Submitted by Muerte on Thu, 2008-08-14 09:44
The government is the ISP and the payment is the conditions they set for the use of this service.
Other than taking a range frequencies off of the market for government use I don't see where this is necessarily anything to worry about.
I'll still take good ole uncensored content over free anyday. I just can't see this being brought up by Democrats. What is the world coming to?
They haven't stopped porn...
Submitted by dwr50 on Thu, 2008-08-14 08:52
on the internet so far, so what makes them think they can stop it on Free Wireless broadband ??
Acer Aspire 5610z,Vista HP, No problems with Vista... so far, but I'm learning Linux, just in case.
Acer Aspire 5315-2153, $348 Walmart Special,Mandriva Linux 2008.1 Spring Edition,VirtualBox 1.6.4
Submitted by bathtbgin on Thu, 2008-08-14 08:07
I would rather see nationwide free internet fail completely than to see our government activively "filtering" the net. Leave net censorhip to the Chinese.
Well put, and unless this is
Submitted by Strongbad536 on Thu, 2008-08-14 08:50
Well put, and unless this is like a 50Mbps downstream, then its not worth it, my FIOS is doing great.
RESOURCE CENTER
MOST COMMENTED ARTICLES
THIS MONTH's ISSUE 
FEATURE Windows Tips: Find out what works and what doesn't as we test the most commonly prescribed Windows tipsHOW TO Customize and streamline your Windows desktop Core i7 Check out Intel's next-gen chip, up close and personal The Reactor We preview the first production-ready oil-immersed PC
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2008 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.