Content Filtering Pulled From Free Broadband Proposal

huzur79 writes "Electronista is reporting that Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC, has dropped the content filtering provisions from the proposal for free wireless broadband service, according to an interview with Ars Technica. Previous drafts of the plan required protection methods to prevent users from accessing objectionable content, such as pornography. 'I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away,' Martin said. The proposal has received criticism and opposition from a variety of groups including the Bush administration, wireless companies, and consumer interest organizations. T-Mobile has argued that communicating data on the allocated frequency bands will cause interference and quality degradation. Civil liberties groups argue that the FCC would overstep its authority and violate the Constitution."

Re:The FCC doing something vaguely intelligent?

[luvirini]

Not really, it is still only a proposal, meaning there is still time to modify it to be stupid before it becomes official policy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The FCC doing something vaguely intelligent?

[calmofthestorm]

Sure, watch where I tunnel my SSH traffic and the rates I send it at. I don't care. You're providing me free internet.

But wait a minute...

[Jane Q. Public]

you say yourself that interfering with content is "evil", then you say that the concept was well-intentioned.

Aside from the contradiction (which I do not think you intended), I say that the idea that it was well-intentioned is giving Martin and friends far too much benefit of doubt. On the contrary, it was a political move, for the blatantly obvious purpose of sucking up to a certain group of voters and businesspeople.

Martin has been called out before for doing exactly the same kind of thing... and didn't another certain female FCC commissioner give a speech recently that was a downright gross example of exactly the same kind of ass-kissing? (Answer: yes, without any doubt whatever.)

Once might be an accident. Two might be a coincidence. But three and more... ??? Give me a fucking break.

Re:Overstepping?

[buddyglass]

Check out Section 5, item (D), bullet (d) of the Radio Act of 1927, which created the Federal Radio Commission. The FRC morphed into the FCC in 1934. Specifically, the Secretary of Commerce is given the right to terminate the license of operators who transmit "profane or obscene words of language". You can view the text of the act here [netins.net]

This has been part of the FCC's mandate from the very beginning. It has been upheld by the courts, for instance in "FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation".

Re:The FCC doing something vaguely intelligent?

[Agripa]

By this logic every product/service is within the federal government's reach -- because if something still was not, they would just need one person to drive across a State's border and buy it.

Fortunately, this logic is not applied to much -- but it is already applied to radio and TV. Which is an outrage.

Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago:

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [wikipedia.org]

The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate--and prohibit--such consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [wikipedia.org]

Justice Thomas' dissent from Gonzales vs. Raich:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

. . .

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."