FCC Chair To Push For Free, Porn-Free National Internet

Silicon Alley Insider:

During the FCC's December meeting, chair Kevin Martin plans to push for a free, but porn-free Internet service that would be available to all Americans. Reports the Wall Street Journal:

The proposal to allow a no-smut, free wireless Internet service is part of a proposal to auction off a chunk of airwaves. The winning bidder would be required to set aside a quarter of the airwaves for a free Internet service. The winner could establish a paid service that would have a fast wireless Internet connection. The free service could be slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other material not suitable for children. The FCC's proposal mirrors a plan offered by M2Z Networks Inc., a start-up backed by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.

Read the whole story: Silicon Alley Insider

Comments

[ScoutandBuckGoodDogs]

Whoops, meant CLOWNS but clones would work too. hehe...

[ScoutandBuckGoodDogs]

These cloans act as if they don't watch it... I'm sure they are the biggest users! It always works out that way doesn't it? Kind of like being gay in the Senate. Those who bash it are the ones in the airport bathroom trying to buy it.

Yes please, take more freedom away from me. That'd be awesome if you also come into my home and tell me what I'm doing wrong too.

[nycelite]

I think this is something that should be pursued. I know the very idea of no porn will send some people into a catatonic state but they are only offering the free service as an alternative. They are not arguing for a complete takeover of internet access. IMO, the government should provide some sort of free access to the internet. It is too important for the development of the nation to not do anything to get more people online. As it stands now, isp pricing is just leaving too many people offline.

Yup, it will be difficult to make close calls about some content, but big deal, that's life.

[ScoutandBuckGoodDogs]

So the poor don't deserve porn too?

[poco767c]

Now you are thinking like the GOP. :D

[alieninvader]

It's not so much the porn that bothers me, it's the "other material not suitable for children". Much too vague. One of my favorite blogs is www.progressivepuppy.com. It's a Progressive blog, but it's also very gay friendly. Will this be deemed not suitable for children?

[nycelite]

That's something that can be debated. The beauty of having more people online is having more people who can engage in real time discussions on these matters. I don't mind chasing after an ideal of having a population of people actively involved in defining our society.

[rockerdelight]

Isn't this the guy that Rachel Maddow talked about a few weeks ago that gave $300,000 to Nascar to advertise the change to digital antenna etc and each of the car crashed..

[Totto]

Send that man a "Maxim"! New FCC chairman, please!

[Blue in NH]

Memo to crazed christians: YOU LOST THE ELECTION. Shut up and go home.

[arvay]

Another lame-brained idea from an administration that obviously doesn't understand that even porno is free speech. These are the kinds of clowns that thought the republic was in danger because football fans got a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast.

Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of youngsters have seen sex on the Internet, a bit easier to get than the older traditional routes of grainy movies and well-thumbed porno books obtained from under-the-counter dealers. Has anyone ever demonstrated how this harms the nation?

This effort to "protect" our morals is a colossal waste of time, money and energy. Would be a lot better to ban advertising aimed at children, especially now when the financial crisis necessitates more saving and less consumerism.

Do they plan to install the kind of Internet filters the Chinese and Iranians use? Maybe they can tap expertise developed under illegal domestic wiretaps.

[rektruax]

Not a good idea... It's not that expensive (I pay about 30 a month for 3mb/sec. broadband and use filters as I see fit. It's the only way really. Otherwise you have endless fighting over what is "porn" or inappropriate.

[timregler]

What do you want to bet the "high bidder" will be Clear Channel?

[Mikeeee]

"and other material not suitable for children." The other is what always scares me. It usually gets wider and wider. til the coookie monster is nullified. Now if you're talking about getting rid of programming like "Barney" I could be persuaded to consider this.

[islanbatman]

Yes please may i have some more... HAHAHA. This is ..........

[amyers]

So not only would this new internet be slower, but it would also block out all the porn? The FCC really knows how to sell its product to the bulk of its customer base. Good luck trying to make it in the private sector when the new administration kicks your butt to the curb next month, Kevin Martin!

[trollsbwild]

The FCC should stay away. This is code for controlling all content. If this happens, it is the beginning of the end for this important, FREE forum.

[Mikeeee]

100% agreed.

[Sumocat]

Except it's not a free forum. Internet access is a pay-for-play system. Whether it's a subscription service or drink at a coffee house, everyone pays someone in some way for access to the Internet. You pay a price, you get access to the Internet. It is similar to satellite radio and paid channels on cable TV, which cost money but are not subject to government content restrictions.

Martin is proposing a no-cost way to get to the Internet, similar to TV and radio broadcasts. These are also available at no cost and are subject to FCC content restrictions. Thus, we will have the choice of free with content restrictions or paid with no content restrictions. There's no reason to believe the two options cannot co-exist.

[Salz08]

and the filters work so well. Like the public library ones that will not allow access to breast cancer information as it is caught by the porn filter bots.....o­r testicular cancer.

Perhaps it is paid access when it is done at schools or libraries if you count property taxes, however there are plenty of ways to get access in most areas without paying a monthly subscription. Libraries, community centers, schools, adult education facilities, etc. I don't live in an urban area, yet there are at least 3 places I can think of off the top of my head where I can use a computer and access the net, albeit under their restrictions, without buying a thing.

This is not a good plan as it will just further compartmentalize net content and encourage the pay-to-view sites to expand further. It will end up controlled by the same types that control most of the supposed free radio and tv airwaves.

[RightWingMarine]

This isn't the responsibility of the government. What is porn anyway? How it is defined?

[StephenDedalus82]

It's defined by whatever some square Republican commissioner thinks it is.

[ScoutandBuckGoodDogs]

Thank God we have this guy to tell us what is good for us and what is not. PHEW! And here I've been deciding on my own...

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

In the words of a former Supreme Court Justice (too lazy to Google it), "I'll know it when I see it."