The FCC has announced that they had finished a series of tests of a swatch of radio band that they're setting aside for a nation-wide, cost-free wireless internet service. Those tests concluded that that spectrum will not interfere with current mobile carriers signals (though ATT, T-Mobile, and all the rest are bitching already), which means that all systems are pretty much go for implementing this thing. (Super geeky explanation here.)
The idea behind it is that the government can use existing spectrum (spectrum opened up with the switchover to digital TV next year) to reach areas underserved by current internet carriers: rural America and underprivileged communities. In order to reach those places, the theory goes, you may as well open it up everywhere. And how.
If this plan goes through, and it doesn't get corrupted in the process (which, unfortunately, it probably will because that's how these things work), it means that in a couple years we will see an immediate and massive shift towards a ubiquitous hand-held, mobile internet. While that's the way things are moving anyway (the iPhone, Google's Android, and other bleeding-edge mobile devices are proving that), this will speed the adoption at a rate far faster than hundred-dollar service plans allow now.
Which means for publishers, the time is now to begin planning your mobile strategy in a way that is meaningful and useful. Because this will change everything. Again.
But--and there's always a but, isn't there--there's a problem:
Notably, both proposals stipulate that any free wireless offerings have mandatory content filters, preventing users from viewing any material that "would be harmful to teens and adolescents."
Yep, we're right back to the Communications Decency Act of 96 again, as demonstrated by using "contemporary community standards" in order to define obscenity. It's a slippery slope that starts with pornographers and ends with medical information, novels, and all the other things that we, as a society, hold dear. It creates, once again, a tiered system of speech: one for the real world and one for the mobile web.
They give and they take away. A free national wireless internet is a goal that will help to transform our culture in ways that we can only begin to imagine. But at what price? Culture itself?
Cross-posted at MEGO, My Eyes Glaze Over: thoughts on the future of journalism
Follow Daniel Sinker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dansinker
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It seems like it would be easy to get around "mandatory content filters" by using a secure HTTPS connection like you get when you enter your CreditCard Information. Filters can't see the encrypted bits and I get to see what I want to see. Am I missing something?
Well, while the phone and cable companies may not like this, I'm sure that the recording industry and the movie and television studios will love it.
See Daniel Sinker's Profile
I'm confused, care to elaborate your theory? It seems the music, film, and TV industry have not found much to love on the internet at all.
It's called "Big Brother"
Can't wait.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The bill here is going to be very high. More SPAM, more identity theft, more hackers, more scams, more of everything we love about the internet. When are prople going to understand that an Internet without regulation is just a disaster getting bigger.
puh. prove it.
See Daniel Sinker's Profile
I think the bill already is pretty high: the curtailing of free speech as we know it. That's exactly the problem with trying to regulate the Internet, isn't it? It starts with something that most everyone could agree on--no child pornography, no illegal hackers--and it ends up in a place much more grey. That's the danger of regulating speech: how do you draw the line?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with