• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FCC plans nationwide free broadband

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Socialized Internet that comes with restrictions and censorship???

Wow... who woulda thought socialism would cost us freedoms and rights, huh?
 
Originally posted by: LS8
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: LS8

The Internet is a private network, not public air waves. The FCC doesn't censor stern now that he is on a private network. The Internet is owned and operated by private companies.
Click to expand...

You're severely mistaken. The Internet is a PUBLIC network by very definition.
Click to expand...

Really? Phone companies own the physical data lines. Companies pay to access the network, individuals pay to access the network. The servers in which data is stored and served are privately owned (like AnandTech for example).
Click to expand...

and the govt is proposing giving public access to all of that "private" information. and as long as you are using the public access, then your content will be restricted.

i know this might be tough for some of you to follow, but the govt is not censoring CONTENT, what is stored and made available at said "private" servers but the content that is being sent over THIS specific medium, the public access.

it is not censorship
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: LS8
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: LS8

The Internet is a private network, not public air waves. The FCC doesn't censor stern now that he is on a private network. The Internet is owned and operated by private companies.
Click to expand...

You're severely mistaken. The Internet is a PUBLIC network by very definition.
Click to expand...

Really? Phone companies own the physical data lines. Companies pay to access the network, individuals pay to access the network. The servers in which data is stored and served are privately owned (like AnandTech for example).
Click to expand...

and the govt is proposing giving public access to all of that "private" information. and as long as you are using the public access, then your content will be restricted.

i know this might be tough for some of you to follow, but the govt is not censoring CONTENT, what is stored and made available at said "private" servers but the content that is being sent over THIS specific medium, the public access.

it is not censorship
Click to expand...

Yes it is censorship since the government in some fashion is determinig what content will not be allowed over this medium much in the same way they currently put restrictions on broadcast content. It may be that the courts will allow this censorship much like they allow broadcast content censorship by showing there is a compelling public benefit but don't try to hide what is going on by not calling it what it is: censorship.

 
The FCC plans to impose several conditions. Among them: The winner will be required to launch free broadband with a filter that automatically blocks adult content. Users can remove the filter once they've confirmed that they are at least 18 years old.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good compromise.

 
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
An update, this will be voted on by the commission on Dec 18.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/w...1-free-broadband_N.htm

Appears there will be an opt-out for the adult content filter. And unsurprisingly, incumbents are opposed to the idea of free internet. I'm sure this will pass in the FCC, but hopefully it doesn't get tied up in the courts by T-Mobile.
Click to expand...

Of course they are because:
1. They understand that there is no such thing as "free internet".
2. As regards item 1 that they will probably be the ones the FCC choose to foot the bill for this so called free internet no doubt through some fee or tax that they will be forbidden to itemize as a government mandated charge on their monthly billing statements.
Click to expand...
This has already been addressed. My understanding is that this will not be tax payer funded internet. They are simply selling at a reduced price (or possibly giving away) a chunk of spectrum to the private sector with the condition that part of it be used for free public broadband. The free service will be subsidized by people who subscribe to the premium tiers (the original article stated 3Mbps service would likely be $20-30/mo).

The cell providers aren't worried about being taxed -- they are worried about a company charging $30/mo for a service they typically charge $60/mo for.
 
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
An update, this will be voted on by the commission on Dec 18.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/w...1-free-broadband_N.htm

Appears there will be an opt-out for the adult content filter. And unsurprisingly, incumbents are opposed to the idea of free internet. I'm sure this will pass in the FCC, but hopefully it doesn't get tied up in the courts by T-Mobile.
Click to expand...

Of course they are because:
1. They understand that there is no such thing as "free internet".
2. As regards item 1 that they will probably be the ones the FCC choose to foot the bill for this so called free internet no doubt through some fee or tax that they will be forbidden to itemize as a government mandated charge on their monthly billing statements.
Click to expand...
This has already been addressed. My understanding is that this will not be publicly-funded internet. They are simply selling at a reduced price (or possibly giving away) a chunk of spectrum to the private sector with the condition that part of it be used for free public broadband. The free service will be subsidized by people who subscribe to the premium tiers (the original article stated 3Mbps service would likely be $20-30/mo).

The cell providers aren't worried about being taxed -- they are worried about a company charging $30/mo for a service they typically charge $60/mo for.
Click to expand...

selling at reduced price is not that different from publicly funded. Government controlled bandwidth = public asset.
 
I wonder who's going to foot the bill for the backend connection. Looks like TMobile is stuck paying for the leachers. I bet the govt is going to be introduced to the network horrors of torrents after this gets rolled out.

"Bit torrent does WHAT to a network? Never heard of it!"
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This sounds like opening Pandora's box in a really bad way for net neutrality.
Click to expand...

why?
Click to expand...

The censorship part bothers me. I like that there are products out there which allow me to control what I do and do not censor from my kids, but I don't like it when any other entity has control over that. I also wonder how this sort of thing might catch on amongst other ISPs or be forced upon them. I'd just rather not have to worry about speculation and not censor anything.
 
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This sounds like opening Pandora's box in a really bad way for net neutrality.
Click to expand...

why?
Click to expand...

The censorship part bothers me. I like that there are products out there which allow me to control what I do and do not censor from my kids, but I don't like it when any other entity has control over that. I also wonder how this sort of thing might catch on amongst other ISPs or be forced upon them. I'd just rather not have to worry about speculation and not censor anything.
Click to expand...

You don't have to use it. They are offering it. How is it any different than any service you sign up for?
 
Originally posted by: JDub02
So now I have to pay for internet service twice? When are people going to realize that nothing government offers is free. They're just taking our money and giving us lousy service that they're calling "free".

There's already "free" internet available. It's called a public library .. something that is probably very foreign to the people that this is targeted to.
Click to expand...

Youve clearly never been in a public library recently. "The people that this is targeted to" are very much familiar with it.
 
Think about it this way. 384k is enough for decent quality VOIP, it's national, and it's wireless. Goodbye extortion-priced cellphone service!
 
Originally posted by: LS8
Originally posted by: spidey07
If they're paying for it then of course they can have that stipulation. I don't like that requirement, but it's fully their right to make it.
Click to expand...

The FCC is a tax payer funded organization. What right do they have to censor content?
Click to expand...

they same "authority" that lets them keep boobies off free OTA TV.
 
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: LS8
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: LS8

The Internet is a private network, not public air waves. The FCC doesn't censor stern now that he is on a private network. The Internet is owned and operated by private companies.
Click to expand...

You're severely mistaken. The Internet is a PUBLIC network by very definition.
Click to expand...

Really? Phone companies own the physical data lines. Companies pay to access the network, individuals pay to access the network. The servers in which data is stored and served are privately owned (like AnandTech for example).
Click to expand...

Okay, then how can they censor a broadcast over radio? The company owns the tower, equipment, and is what sends the signal. By your definition it should be considered "private".

Also just because they own the cable, doesn't mean it isn't public. The internet always has been a public domain.
Click to expand...

simple, radio stations, TV stations dont own the airwave.
 
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This sounds like opening Pandora's box in a really bad way for net neutrality.
Click to expand...

why?
Click to expand...

The censorship part bothers me. I like that there are products out there which allow me to control what I do and do not censor from my kids, but I don't like it when any other entity has control over that. I also wonder how this sort of thing might catch on amongst other ISPs or be forced upon them. I'd just rather not have to worry about speculation and not censor anything.
Click to expand...

its your choice to use it or not. the government isnt saying you HAVE to use it or that it is your only choice.

no censorship here, move along.
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Think about it this way. 384k is enough for decent quality VOIP, it's national, and it's wireless. Goodbye extortion-priced cellphone service!
Click to expand...
Probably another reason the cell providers are opposed. 😉

The old analog TV spectrum is much more exciting for mobile VoIP IMO. Because it's unlicensed, anybody can manufacture a device utilizing the spectrum. So once the internet infrastructure for this spectrum starts to take off, there should hopefully be no shortage of VoIP cell phones and providers to choose from.
 
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I like how boobs are a big no no, yet having someone get graphically blown away is ok
Click to expand...

ive bitched about that for years.

its ok to see women raped, stabbed, shot, blown up, hit, slapped, chained, shooting up smack, smoking crack, thrown out of cars, chopped up, dead and decomposed.

but show a nipple and people are summoned to Washington to stand on the FCC carpet.

fucking stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top