Free ‘n’ censored Internet
Scott Bradner has a terrific column on the FCC’s idea that it will make some spectrum available for free Net access, so long as it’s censored. If the naughty bits can’t be stopped by filters, then the FCC wants the carriers to block it using other means, e.g., perhaps by blocking encrypted data?
I don’t know why the FCC thinks that it has the mandate to censor the Internet. And if they do, why don’t they insist on a morally pure telephone network? Why do they think the Internet consists of content instead of people communicating? And why does the FCC care so much about boobies?
More info: The company behind this. The .doc file with the FCC text. Reuters. M2Z comment (type “m2z” in “filed on behalf of”). DailyWireless.
Categories: digital rights, net neutrality
Gentlemen, you can’t freely communicate here, this is the Internet!
Distressing. And shouldn’t that be b**bies? Where is George Carlin when we need him?
[...] also Scott Bradner, David Weinberger, Persephone [...]
[...] Neither the FCC nor any other government agency has any business in Internet censorship, as the courts have repeatedly held. (In fact, the FCC has no business in broadcast censorship any more either, but see Chapter 8 of Blown to Bits for that story.) There are so many problems with this idea, it’s hard to know where to begin, but Scott Bradner’s column would be a good start for those wanting to know more and to get some of the background. Fundamentally, the flaw with this proposal rests on another metaphorical failure. See also David Weinberger on this. [...]
1. boobs.
2. can’t the FCC just go crawl into a volcano somewhere?
1. boobs.
2. can’t the FCC just go crawl into a volcano somewhere?