Washington (DC) - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued preliminary approval for the creation of a free, nation-wide broadband service in the AWS-3 band. One criteria for any providers wishing to utilize the new air wave is that it be absolutely free from all forms of obscenity and pornography. "AWS-3 means smut free" may become their new slogan. Though, probably not.


Testing mandated

T-Mobile expressed serious concerns over the use of AWS-3 after having paid $4.2 billion for rights to the neighboring AWS-1 spectrum in 2006. They claimed that wide use of AWS-3 would affect service through disruption and interference, and demanded that the FCC run tests to determine if that were true and to what extent.

The tests were conducted in Seattle, Washington on September 3-5 using both AWS-1 and AWS-3 devices in operation. They have since concluded that the two bands will not interfere with each other significantly enough to warrant canceling the plans to move forward. A summary of the FCC's final 21-page report stated, "The analysis shows that an AWS-1 and AWS-3 device operating in close proximity does not necessarily result in interference."

The FCC has since given preliminary approval and has announced the go ahead plans. They will likely start auctioning off the spectrum for public consumption in the near future.


Ten year plan

Companies who bid for the AWS-3 network will have to adhere to a graduated plan of implementation. The winning bidder will have five to complete 50% of the network. And within ten years they must have 95% completed. This plan includes not only the infrastructure, but also a necessary mechanism to filter out obscene or pornographic material, as is decided by "contemporary community standards."


Free doesn't mean "completely free"

The AWS-3 band represents at 25 MHz swath of the frequency spectrum. The winning bidder must provide at least 25% of the band's capacity to free broadband service. However, the remaining 75% can be fee-based. Both portions must be free from obscenity or pornography.

The winning bidder will be required to pay a small percentage of any revenues made by use of the band to the United States Treasury.

whaT!!!

Oct 14, 2008 12:38     

Why would I need access to the internet if I can't access porn?
me report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +11

whaT!

Oct 14, 2008 12:40     

Why would I need internet access if I am not allowed to access porn?!?
me report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -6

Have they no idea what the internet is for??

Oct 14, 2008 12:40     

Now I know that many people use the internet for varied and various different things from email to downloading music, sharing photos, keeping close to friends/family, and a whole lot more legitimate uses. However, lets all be honest with ourselves. The internet is for porn. Porn is everywhere and anywhere. I run into porn looking up oatmeal cookie recipes (I booked marked that for later)! So basically you have to block over half the internet to use this "Free" spectrum. The FCC just don't know.

Lowlife report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +7

Could be big...

Oct 14, 2008 12:55     

There was an article about a month back about porn being passed by social networking on the internet. (Can be found here http://www.reuters.com/article...3720080916) This could be very big for teenagers who are accessing the internet for myspace, facebook, and the like.
not so much porn report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2

Just this...

Oct 14, 2008 13:22     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pn4kZyqVRU
Baka_toroi report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Ther goes your freedom of speech

Oct 14, 2008 13:28     

Not that I don't think it's a novel endeavor to try and clean up the internet but let's be honest; who is going to enforce this rule? Do you really think that you can keep any communications medium "smut free" now adays? Even if you could, what would it cost to keep it that way? Thank you big government for sticking to your principles of butting into the business of, well, everyone.
Justin Bailey report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +3

Realistically Control Porn/Obsenity HOW?!

Oct 14, 2008 13:42     

I have no idea how they are going to control porn and obscenity content in real-time. Proxies, filtering, etc... have time limitations and there's undoubtedly going to be some of the smut getting through until something like a SmartFilter, etc.. updates with new "known" sites. The overhead for monitoring real time is ridiculous not to mention content that users bring via their machines. I just don't see this being a realistic and attainable goal on the constant ever fluxing internet. Good luck whomever wins the contract, maybe they'll create some super advanced AI monitoring software that will keep the bad stuff to a minimum. Again I'm thinking the industry is years away from that level of sophistication.

Da Man report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2

What qualifies as obsenity?

Oct 14, 2008 14:23     

Porn is one thing but to have a term as broad as obsenity is to to risky for me. Depending on some peoples beliefes pro-choice information is obscene. The internet is ment to be a vast information highway I dont want filters telling me what infor I can and can not access. It starts with adult entertainment and than it grows from there, be careful, soon they will be trying to filter all internet sources.

Sam report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

What free speak stuff?

Oct 14, 2008 14:27     

What free speak stuff?
mr.x report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

They shouldnt ban porn

Oct 14, 2008 14:31     

They shouldnt ban porn. I liked this idea until they stated saying how it will be absolutely free from all forms of obscenity and pornography. So much for getting anatomically correct pictures of the human body
mr.x report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Porn doesn't exist.

Oct 14, 2008 15:13     

The problem with this is that porn doesn't exist, so it can't be regulated. Porn is simply a label that one person places on what they find to be erotic. It's just like saying "We're going to block all bad music." I guarantee you that most people can get turned on without seeing genitalia or a naked body. Actually, audio and motion were found to best denote erotic subject matter. So I'm wondering not only how this would be achieved technically, but actually categorically as well, since it's impossible. User-flagging? I guess once google gets flagged as porn and blocks half the internet, the problems will become clear.

mmbleh report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Freedom

Oct 14, 2008 16:08     

You still have freedom of speech. You just can't have it on the new government sponsored intrawebs And yes, a company will be creating this but it's still sanctioned and (obviously) regulated by the lovely FCC. Seriously, this has to be one of the stupidest concessions to ultra-conservative mormons ... sorry, morons ... I've seen in a long time. So someone cries they don't want their tax dollars to support pron. Great, if you can decide what moral obligations YOUR tax dollars support I can do the same right? Well then MY tax dollars won't support ignorant, intolerant, overbearing morals! Oh wait, you don't like the flip side of the coin? Awww. Here's a tissue, but it might be a bit sticky. Really though, why do people (read: minority composed largely of bored housewives) insist on forcing their moral values upon others? Would I object to a 100' billboard in times square of something perverse and inappropriate for children? Yes. It's obvious to see in public and for those who live/work there they can't avoid it. Having pron websites on the 'net doesn't mean you are forced to view them. Don't go online, use google safe-search, or simply only use sites you know and trust. Your inability to "turn it off" (referring to TV or radio more commonly) means that no one else should be able to see/hear/use it? Get real.

ciscoopa report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

obscenity

Oct 14, 2008 16:12     

now a big huge fight will come between those that will determine what is smut. a girl with large hoo hoo's in a really small bikini may be scene as obscene, egardless that shes not naked.
jonas report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Financially sound move

Oct 14, 2008 16:41     

I'm sure it'd have been more difficult for the internet companies to stomach the free network had porn been made available over it. At least this way there's a reason to pay for their services.
ET report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

more on realistically

Oct 14, 2008 19:38     

beyond the logistical issues of actually blocking porn, the definition of obscene is too obscure. Using movies as an example, what is the cutoff? R? PG-13 - OH, NO! Clevage! BLOCK IT!!!! Is Saving Private Ryan obscene? How about Forrest Gump? The criteria are too subjective. Additionally, is it obscene if it is considered art? THERE ARE NO "CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS" FOR THIS, you simply cannot regulate it effectively.

kars0n report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

uhf?

Oct 14, 2008 20:37     

now that TV is going digital, does anyone know what is going to happen to good old uhf and vhf signals? Or is digital TV still going to sit in that spectrum in digital?
caeden report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Forget about the porn...

Oct 15, 2008 00:00     

"The winning bidder must provide at least 25% of the band's capacity to free broadband service. However, the remaining 75% can be fee-based." 25%? Do you know how slow that will be once everyone tries to use it? P.S. @Kars0n "Is Saving Private Ryan obscene? How about Forrest Gump?" Saving Private Ryan, not obscene. Saving Ryan's Privates, obscene. Forrest Gump, not obscene. Forrest Humps, obscene. :P

fanboy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

porn free is the way to be

Oct 15, 2008 08:57     

I think 'porn free is the way to be'. If some one one wants porn, they should get some other way. I do not want porn and do not want it pushed on me by some site that was taken over by a porn site just so they can re-direct one to their site.
TomLeeM/BigWarpGuy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Fire up your proxy servers....

Oct 15, 2008 09:03     

...and get whatever content you want :)
nobody report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Anyway...

Oct 15, 2008 11:21     

Do any of you know that porn makes up 92% of the business done on the internet? Just kidding, it's only 91.99999999%. I like the idea of national broadband access but let's be for real. People will still do the porn thing no matter what.
Stew Pidd report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

FREE IS FREE REMEMBER THAT

Oct 15, 2008 11:51     

THIS IS GREAT PLUS ITS FREE. THIS IS LIKE TV, IF YOU WANT THE REAL DEAL YOUR GUNNA HAVE TO PAY LIKE SAT OR CABLE. MIGHT DRIVE INTERNET PRICES DOWN?
JOEY PEPERTONE report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

@JOEY PEPERTONE

Oct 16, 2008 09:31     

Yep, this is free, just like network TV, you want porn, you need to continue to use your local cable provider, Fios, Comcrap, etc. And for us gamers, don't be surprised if they cap the bandwidth or time allotment on the free connection. I remember a very very long time ago, when DSL was in it's early days, at $80 a month for 384 speeds. Net Zero offered free DSL, but you're forced to view ads, and it was mandatory to click on ads. I'll expect something like that for this proposed free service as well. And as Joey said, it's Free. You want free, expect limitations.

Devon M report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

free internet!

Oct 16, 2008 12:21     

It does seem like a great idea, and this plan has been so long in the making! There is an interesting article hereabout it.
Sarah report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

?

Oct 17, 2008 12:41     

Ok. censored "Free" connection; understandable. censored paid connection; unfair
cklep report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0