FCC Chair Kevin Martin's nationwide wireless broadband plan
So Kevin Martin (not the one who used to post here. The other one.) is apparently set on auctioning off a large portion of the wireless spectrum to whomever can provide nationwide wireless broadband — free of charges and free or porn. Which, to me, is where it gets really interesting. I’m a freedom of speech nut and, in my mind, porn falls squarely under “speech.” But I also believe free internet access to all Americans is, perhaps, equally important.
So which is more important? Absolute, no-exceptions free speech that cuts off our figurative noses to spite our information-craved faces? Or free data nationwide that sets a dangerous precedent? And for any free-marketeers out there, are we at a point where we can consider internet access a utility like electric and water? Or does the U.S. Government have no business pushing free internet?
Comments
Yeah, the problem is that it’s dependent on who determines what “porn” is I guess. I don’t like it one bit. Restrictions on speech that is, not porn. That I like just fine.
I don’t really understand the controversy. They’re only auctioning off a little piece of the broadband spectrum, correct? I kind of see this as the creation of “basic” and “premium” internet service, similar to TV. If the service is going to be offered completely free of access fees, I totally support it being censored because those providing the service will be accepting responsibility for how it ends up being used.
This isn’t really a proposal to take away the internet as we know it, it’s just an idea to section off a little piece of it and make it family friendly. If you don’t want to give up your porn or Al Jazeera access, you can continue to pay for it right? I don’t see the problem.
Rus (who used to post here) and I talked about Internet porn one time, and how porn lobbiests beat a measure to make all porn sites end in .xxx instead of .com, or something like that. I thought the idea was a pretty good one… I mean, what’s the harm in denoting the content of the site?
I invite you to argue, which I’m guessing will be one of how a .xxx designation somehow limits free speech.
I just think it makes sense because it’s really easy for parents to restrict content to minors… like in schools and at home. Web filters and Net Nannies are wildly ineffective or overly broad because there is no obvious and universal parameter that can be restricted.
I went to a high school with a kid whose last name was Pornell, and he could never type it into a school computer. Even if he typed Porell, and then went back and added the “n,” the computer would freak and Net Nanny would shut him down. How did they resolve this? The IT guy for the school gave him the password to Net Nanny… and he then told everyone. “Backdoor.” So uninspired. I showed my AP Psych teacher how to get around the filters when he was looking for some oddly-restricted DSM IV shit or something.
Anyway, I digress…
So really. What’s so bad about having all porn shit end in .xxx?
I dont’ think there’s anything wrong with it and, in fact, I believe the plan to do so is underway at ICANN. That, however, is neither here nor there as they haven’t stated just how they plan on filtering said porn yet.
What type of porn is the lobbiest of all porn?
Tentacle rape.
i love where this is going.
You heard it here first, folks. Mandy loves tentacle rape.
Depends where it goes.
I have absolutely no problem with this. Because
1) The aforementioned right to restrict the internet by the provider based on their own responsibility.
2) It beats the FCCs other crazy talk about tiered access and all.
3) Anyone who thinks they will be able to keep porn from being available is out of their gourd.
My only worry is that someone will be looking over my shoulder the whole time. I’ll have to keep an ixnay on all my ihadjays.
Evan said:
My only worry is that someone will be looking over my shoulder the whole time. I’ll have to keep an ixnay on all my ihadjays.
What?