Feeds

back to article Free wireless broadband boosted

FCC Chair Kevin Martin has proposed dropping the content-filtering requirement attached to the AWS band, in the hope that someone will build a network if they're not required to remove all the pornography. The proposal, which was revealed in a call to Ars Technica, suggests the successful bidder for the Advanced Wireless …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Down

Stupidest idea

ever.

That is all

0
0

How about..

A mesh network, you build parts of it and the users buy nodes to fill in the gaps, I know this isn't in the spec but could be a better plan.

0
0
Thumb Up

I like the idea.

Why would someone want to use a slower connection for torrents? There's no reason to "save their paid-for bandwidth" unless they plan to use more than the allocated paid-for amount. I think the AWS is a good idea. It will cause the ISPs to compete with a free offering and will allow those that don't have an Internet connection to get online, like my mother and my fiancé's parents who have yet to join the wired world. I can only see this as a good thing.

I do expect to hear of abuses of the system, but that can probably be handled by some sort of excessive use throttling or max monthly usage cap or such. If it's free, you shouldn't bitch about a little bit of a cap as long as it's reasonable.

0
0
Thumb Down

Brilliant Piece of Absolute Diatribe

"FCC proposes smut for all - By Bill Ray" - Wow Bill, that was fairly sensationalist tripe for the masses. I wonder from a techie perspective whether you actually thought about your diatribe & actually figured out why the FCC were not going to filter the net. The reasoning behind it is actually evident in your text but you play that out as a filler. It's very fat indeed with not a lot of credibility.

So the FCC couldn't or can't get anyone interested in the provision of this free wireless that they have to filter of all pornographic content. Then the FCC takes away the requirement to filter the porn. Why? Because the only way to check all images for pornography is to look at them. With 50 zillion images moving across the Internet per day that would mean a lot of checking.

Of course you could always have a background check that searches every image for a nipple or a penis or a vagina but I have a feeling that the result would be a broadband solution that runs like glue, thick, tenacious glue. Your beatup about the horrors of "pornography, pornography, the world turns to hell" is for the most part pathetic but also incredibly demeaning to the intelligence of those that read your insipid column. How dumb do you think people are? Well about as dumb as I am for reading this nonsense.

Get a life!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.