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.
You're severely mistaken. The Internet is a PUBLIC network by very definition.
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).
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.
You're severely mistaken. The Internet is a PUBLIC network by very definition.
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).
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
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.
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).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.
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.
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
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).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.
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.
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: Xavier434
This sounds like opening Pandora's box in a really bad way for net neutrality.
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This sounds like opening Pandora's box in a really bad way for net neutrality.
why?
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.
why?
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: 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.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: LS8
I didn't know the FCC engaged in a national vote of all tax payers for the content they sensor.
They caught holy hell for a freaking boob slip during the superbowl.
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.
The FCC is a tax payer funded organization. What right do they have to censor content?
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.
You're severely mistaken. The Internet is a PUBLIC network by very definition.
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).
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.
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.
why?
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.
Probably another reason the cell providers are opposed.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!
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I like how boobs are a big no no, yet having someone get graphically blown away is ok