FCC Tests Dismiss Smut-Free Wireless WorriesInterference claimed by T-Mobile appears to be nonexistent... 10:00AM Tuesday Sep 23 2008 by Karl Bodetags: fcc · wireless · alternatives · networkingFCC boss Kevin Martin and M2Z Networks' plan for a smut-censored free national wireless service recently ran into opposition from T-Mobile, who claimed that the technology being used (Time Division Duplex (TDD)) caused interference. This claim was made despite the fact that T-Mobile has used this same technology extensively overseas, and was generally seen as a transparent effort to derail the project. The FCC has now come back with their testing results, and according to a press release by M2Z, there is no interference threat: "In the end, the tests showed time division duplex ("TDD") and frequency division duplex ("FDD") technologies can coexist in the 2.1 GHz band using the technical rules similar to those that M2Z has been advocating for over two years," said Dr. Paul J. Kolodzy, Chief Technical Consultant to M2Z and former FCC Senior Spectrum Policy Advisor who attended the tests in Seattle on behalf of M2Z. Still, Martin's quest for booby-prohibited broadband still has a very steep hill to climb. Both competition wary Incumbent wireless lobbyists and rights groups who believe a censored, government sponsored Internet project is unconstitutional will continue their opposition. Even if M2Z runs that gauntlet successfully, a lot can go wrong with M2Z's plan to deploy 384kbps free (content filtered) service and a $20-$30 3Mbps tier to 95% of the country in ten years.
Related:- Google Launches White Space Broadband Website
- 100Mbps Wireless In Two Years?
- LTE Rollout Reverses Typical Mobile Technology Introduction
- Wednesday Is 'White Spaces Day'
- Wireless at 10-20Gbps
- FCC Engineers Say White Space Broadband Works
- FCC Poised To Approve White Space Broadband
- Clearwire CEO: FCC Approval Would Be 'Good Policy.'
|
 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs: | Freedom isn't free. But censorship sure as hell is! | |
| expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| Content Filtered? Sounds so un-American. Remember how some wanted Harry Potter to be removed from school libraries? Who is in charge of slapping the smut label on content?
Perhaps Guv Palin could be in charge of that, she seems to be on the straight and narrow.  | |
|  | 
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC | Re: Content Filtered? You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... | |
| | | 
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
| Re: Content Filtered? said by Neyland85  :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)...
- FM
--
Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! Care to challenge me? | |
| | | | 
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
| Re: Content Filtered? said by FutureMon :said by Neyland85 :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)... - FM I agree. Also if its free they can do whatever, you don't need to get it. | |
| | | | | 
StreetSpirit
Good Luck, President Elect Obama
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn Heights, NY
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Content Filtered? said by Corehhi :said by FutureMon :said by Neyland85 :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)... - FM I agree. Also if its free they can do whatever, you don't need to get it. Who pays for it? If it's free to the users, that is. Wanna take an off hand guess?
You and me. | |
| | | |
StreetSpirit
Good Luck, President Elect Obama
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn Heights, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
September 24th, @01:29AM
| said by FutureMon :said by Neyland85 :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)... - FM FM I can see your point, but think about this:
Responsible parents don't need the government's help with filtering content that is reaching their kids. I have two kids, one of whom is an avid computer user. I've tried different ways of filtering, and it can work without the FCC's help.
Besides, why should the tax payers who don't have children, or have grown children pay for free filtered broadband for parents who don't want to take the time to properly secure & filter their kid's computers.
And who decides what's filtered? Let's say my 9 year old needs to do research for biology, and finds a certain page filtered on this "free" service. Can I unblock it without writing to the FCC? Probably not.
This idea is fraught with problems and problematic thinking. Again, relying on the government to do something that you yourself should be doing is not a wise idea.
Dave | |
| | | | |
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
| Re: Content Filtered? I'm not advocating the filtering aspect of this discussion.
All I'm saying is that if ICANN did go ahead and create the .xxx domain, there would be no need for a "man in the middle" filtering system. All filtering would/could be done at the PC (or router/firewall) receiving the content.
The pron industry is against .xxx simply because it makes it too easy to block them, and in many cases they rely on obfuscation and typo's in web URL's to draw people to their domains.
Also, if someone is browsing an .xxx domain, there's pretty much no question that they want to be there if once they arrive (by whatever means), they don't leave.
- FM
--
Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! Care to challenge me? | |
| | | | lvlorpheus
join:2008-02-17
Eureka Springs, AR
| The important thing here is that our childrens right to watch video that have people killing each other, and being able to play games where they play killing people must not be filtered.
As long as we protect everyone from looking upon the most beautiful creation of all time everything should be fine.
But wait maybe they should filter killing too. Maybe they could filter controversial opinions too.
filtering if needed should come into play at the end users location, not on the network. If the look at it the right way they make more money this way. Why have one filter for an area instead of selling a filtering device to 100's of customers. | |
| | | expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| Re: Content Filtered? I'm all for filtering what reaches my computers at home. Thats MY responsibility as a Dad. I'll make the determination what is acceptable and what isn't. Some people might find certain lyrical content offensive, is the netwerk going to screen that for me?? I hope not.... | |
| | | | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Anticipated speeds at 10 yrs pathetic said by TK Junk Mail :10 yrs out even a "free" tier that only delivers 384kbps is pretty bad. And a pay tier of 3 mbps will not be competitive with LTE & Wimax rollouts taking place over the next 10 yrs. That's a good point, in 10 years 5 mbps will be a "lite" tier and 30 mbps will be no more than mid-tier at best. | |
| eco
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE | .. $20-30 for 3Mbps in 10 years? In 10 years that kind of speed will be like 56k.. I'm paying about $40 a month now for 20Mbps service.. | |
| | | |
|
|
Anticipated speeds at 10 yrs pathetic