Re: Addams Family or Ned Flanders? The FCC Internet Censorship Battle Heats Up

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert J Berger <rberger () ibd com>
> Date: October 14, 2008 11:10:05 AM EDT
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
> Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Addams Family or Ned Flanders?  The FCC  
> Internet Censorship Battle Heats Up
>
> So who is organizing an effort to get Congress and/or the courts to  
> shut this down before it goes any further? This has to be the  
> stupidest idea I have heard of in a long time and completely  
> inappropriate at so many levels.
>
> On the other hand, we could let it go thru, get some stupid VCs and  
> investors pour money into the auctions which will help the Federal  
> deficit (a tiny bit) as this will never generate an ROI for the  
> investors and it will shut down in a few years.  Its technically,  
> politically and economically unsound.
>
> Rob
>
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:46 AM, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
>
> > [Note:  This item comes from Dave Farber's IP list.  I'm in  
> > agreement with Lauren on this one.  The FCC's actions here are just  
> > pure ideological madness!  DLH]
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> > Date: October 13, 2008 9:31:18 PM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Cc: lauren () vortex com
> > Subject: Addams Family or Ned Flanders?  The FCC Internet  
> > Censorship Battle Heats Up
> >
> > Addams Family or Ned Flanders?  The FCC Internet Censorship Battle  
> > Heats Up
> >
> > <http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000442.html>
> >
> >
> > Greetings.  The FCC appears poised to push ahead with plans to
> > auction off spectrum to provide "free" nationwide wireless Internet
> > service, but wants to make sure that the Internet you access this
> > way is thoroughly culturally shackled.  Even search engines could be
> > forbidden
> > ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/27/fcc_may_auction_aws_iii_band 
> >  ).
> >
> > At issue is a chunk of unused spectrum that a former FCC official
> > has had his eyes on for quite some time.  John Muleta was head of
> > the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, then co-founder of M2Z
> > Networks, Inc.  M2Z wanted the spectrum to set up an Internet
> > service that would be free and ad-supported at low speeds like 384
> > Kbs, and a paid service at higher speeds.  And they promised to
> > filter everything to make the service "family friendly" (so warm and
> > cuddly that phrase).
> >
> > When the Commission didn't move fast enough for M2Z's liking, M2Z
> > sued.  The FCC decided that they wanted to auction off the spectrum,
> > but auction rules to many observers appear to favor M2Z.  The
> > Commission also bought into M2Z's concept that the service must be
> > "family friendly" content filtered (that is, content censored).
> >
> > Today we learn that the FCC has determined that use of the spectrum
> > won't interfere with T-Mobile's adjacent 3G services -- a point of
> > strong disagreement with T-Mobile -- and that the Commission plans
> > to go ahead with their auction and Internet censorship
> > requirements ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385228422827027.html 
> >  ).
> >
> > There are more than a few interesting and important issues relating
> > to all this.  Obviously, if the FCC is wrong about the lack of
> > interference, there are going to be a whole lot of very upset
> > T-Mobile customers -- not to mention T-Mobile themselves who paid
> > something like $4B for their nearby spectrum just a few years ago.
> >
> > Another question we might ask -- does it make sense to hand off the
> > entire nationwide control of this unused spectrum to a single
> > entity?  Why not make it available on reasonable terms to the
> > various smaller spectrum-starved regional and local wireless
> > entities -- we might actually see some vibrant Internet access
> > competition enabled that way.  But of course money talks and
> > spectrum walks.
> >
> > Of even broader significance is the whole concept of the FCC
> > mandating a censored Internet.  This is a repugnant and unrealistic
> > concept, and likely to land the Commission in endless
> > resource-wasting battles.
> >
> > Any attempt at selective filtering is doomed to failure.  Myriad
> > ways around typical filters will be possible via proxies and other
> > means.  To really nail down Internet content, you'd probably have to
> > move from a "prohibited" list to a "permitted" list.  That is, only
> > allow access to a walled garden of sites that have been pre-cleared
> > and "sanitized for your protection" -- and no access to anything
> > else.
> >
> > Otherwise, escapes around the block filters will always be easy.
> > Even general purpose search engines and archives would seem possible
> > targets for blocking, since their descriptions and caches might
> > provide the Web surfer with all manner of officially "unapproved"
> > materials.
> >
> > And what the blazes does "family friendly" mean anyway?  Just whose
> > family are we talking about?  I'll admit that seeing the filter list
> > from Gomez Addams or Grandpa Munster might be intriguing, but my
> > suspicion is that we'd get something much closer to the political
> > sensibilities of Homer Simpson's neighbor Ned Flanders.
> >
> > Whoever might end up in the role of grand exalted censorship god,
> > this whole scheme is not an appropriate concept for the FCC to be
> > mandating.  Auctioning off the available spectrum for more Internet
> > access is one thing.  If it's going to be auctioned to a single
> > party, the winner should have to abide by content neutral rules just
> > as everyone else in the ISP business should be doing.
> >
> > Trying to force feed the public with a pablum of so-called "family
> > friendly" Internet content in auctioned spectrum is a bad joke, an
> > impractical abomination, and an idea worthy of filing only deep in
> > Grandpa Munster's dungeon.
> >
> > --Lauren--
> > Lauren Weinstein
> > lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> > http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> > Co-Founder, PFIR
> > - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> > Co-Founder, NNSquad
> > - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
> > Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> > Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> > RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com