Here's your Web allowance. Don't use it on porn

I'm not seeing all the hub bub bud. I can give a rats behind about porn and so if it wasn't available on my "FREE" wireless hookup I really don't care. I'd be saving that $44.50 a month I give AOL and still be able to use my computer for the things I do. I have my "FREE" Yahoo g-mail account.  The optimum word here is "FREE".  I work for a small County Government, we give away "FREE" (there's that word again) Mulch and Firewood at our Landfill. People actually get upset when we run out of fire wood or one of the mulch sites is not replenished. I say the nerve of these clowns it's "FREE" and they still complain like some people on this post. So give me "FREE" Internet and you can have your porn and You Tube!

I agree that it's invasive and a blow to civil liberties, but from a practical sense I support the move: video eats up a whole lot of bandwith.  (That's right, Rodney from Tampa!)  If I were using the free bandwith to work remotely or check my email, I'd be annoyed with my neighbors that were watching a lot of porn - or any other videos - and slowing down the connection speed.  My parents live in rural and wooded Indiana, and though willing to pay a premium, can't get any sort of high-speed Internet service other than through an unreliable wireless Internet card from a cell company. Not only is it a pain for them to access the Internet at all, but on a wider scale it limits small Internet- or technology-based businesses developing in that area.  If people are using it primarily to watch videos and making it nearly as slow as dial-up, it becomes worthless.  Heck, I'd block Youtube and Netflix streaming, too - or charge a de minimis amount for performing an action that drained bandwith from my neighbors.  Whether the government's intentions are solely to limit people's ability to watch porn, it has to come down to a more utilitarian argument: free Broadband should be crafted to provide the best service to the greatest number of people.

Helen, your Opion is overshadowing the news you are supposed to report. You should seperate your feelings and bias OUT of the news. The News is Simply that Free broadband will be auctioned w/purchaser to grant 25 percent to Americans who need it, less the Porn. Your interection is annoying, secondly, as from the posts some think differently. I disagree with you 100 percent. If I was giving away a portion of my purchase, I would rather it not be squandered out to some guy trying to get his Ya Ya's off of it. In other words, it is not elitist or puritan thinking to suggest there are better uses for broadband than pornography. W can go to the convwnience store and buy a stroke mag like a pack cigarrettes. Nobody needs to fund that. So your lousy writing can get posted and read instead of a band eating Hi Resolution Gang Bang video! Make sense, yes? Alos, the word is Christmas, that is 5 letters of text that you didn't need to spare. You are the reason News papers, and "jounalists" are losing thier careers. Repert the story, and then offer your opinion if you want us to know you are a card carrying Liberal.

This article is absolutely ridiculous!  This free broadband internet is FREE!  You are not being charged for it, it is being given to you with the hopes that it will be used appropriately, not for things such as viewing pornography.  The author of this article writes as though pornography is an unalienable right.  Well that's wrong!  Being able to view pornography IS your right, but the service that brings it to you is NOT.  The Government is enabling the free broadband service in hopes that it will be used for productive activities such as research for educational purposes or for people to expand their knowledge through online news articles, and other websites of appropriate material.  Hell you could even use the free broadband for Facebook, Myspace, online games, or whatever! As long as it's clean.  Some parents try hard to monitor what their children see online.  Well, suddenly the internet is bombarding them everywhere they go, it becomes more difficult to filter what their kids see online.

This author also brings up a point that the Government hands out food stamps but also limits what people can use them for...

What a bizarre moral judgment. Here are your food stamps, poor people! Now, only buy vegetables and low-fat protein sources — no birthday cake or Yodels!

... HELLO unfortunately it's sad to say that most people, not all (obviously in times like these people lose their jobs and require assistance to survive), are in the situation where they require assistance to survive because of their own choices.  So when the Government says that you must use your food stamps to buy vegetables (oh my! Why can't I buy Cookies, twinkies, and Rockstar energy drinks?!) and low-fat protein sources such as beans and turkey or chicken that doesn't come precut and expensively packaged, be thankful that you are recieving some type of aid that will keep you from starving but unfortunately won't give you a dinner worthy of "keeping up with the Jones' ". 

So back to the main issue, if you would like to view pornography--DO IT!! But don't expect the Government to ask you what your fetish is and how kinky you're feeling today, becuase this is a free service not a free right.  The library offers free internet, do you demand they allow you to watch porn there?  We all need to stop bickering and whining and gratefully take what is given to us and provided to us at no charge.

So to the small town farmer and even the kinky housewife living in Rural 'One-Horse Town, USA'  I'm sorry: YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY TO GET YOUR THRILLS!

yes. I agree it should be free of pornography

1) porn may be a basic freedom as same other guys say here.

2) it is also know to be a bandwith clog/thief

3) it is also known to cause addiction (but maybe not in all people)

4) it is also KNOWN , REALLY KNOWN for accounting for MANY MANY MAN HOURS, and same female hours as well

5) there is always that moral thing.

bottom line: I believe if you are getting something free, then it is a privilege not a right. Whomever is giving you free stuff has the right to put any rules they feel to. If you do not like it, don't take. It is your freedom to choose or not right. Tough it is true in this case the decision should be made by the companies that will provide the free internet, not the goverment that is just auctioning the spectrum

there is much to be said about forbidding porn. Allowing porn most probably will take us to a very slow, sloppy service. Plus as I said, it will get goverment and companies in complicity for previous porn addiction. And put taxpayers on the hook for someone suing the gov /companies for his/ger addiction or lost time/wages. Instead if they have to pay, well...it is their choice and the legal situation changes.

But I agree that if porn is out, then other things that fill more or less in the same category should be ruled out of the free service: music videos, mp3, etc etc. To make it simpler, the free service should be free but no unlimited neither in speed or amoung of gigabytes transmited.

an alternative would be limiting the bandwith or the total gigabytes per period of time . in that case porn will be not rule out per se, but because it would be impractical

and yes, you have the freedom for porn. Just go and pay for that on your own.

There stomping our rights are you serious?

There are offering free Access but with a stipulation which shouldn't be a problem?   If It is a problem for some then PAY for Access since there still giving you a choice FREE OR PAY?   Everyone else I knows PAYS for Porn in some shape or form Why should this be any different. 

It's kind like the WIC and Food Stamp program "no difference really" which is Free for those that qualify but you can't buy Alcohol or Cigs with FOOD STAMPS and with WIC you can only buy authorized items for your child.  So Are the one's saying there stomping there Rights think that with those programs there stomping people Rights?  You shouldn't since those programs are in place for a specific reason just like the Free Internet Access.  The Govt is just letting a third party handle the running of the program but putting a stipulation on it. 

To those that think the Govt is stomping your Rights then maybe you also think the Govt needs to stop all Socialistic programs.  No Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare or any kind of Govt assistance since that's not Democratic in nature but Socialistic and Stomps our Rights.

Now what do those people say?

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:宋体; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 680460288 22 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 680460288 22 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

Idiot author.  Free internet is not your right.  And 2^nd, porn is destructive to society and families.  If certain people insist on continuing to damage themselves they can do it the same way they do it now, by paying to do it.  Porn should not be handed out for free, it should be in the same category as other addictive, harmful habits such as cigarettes, alcohol, and illegal drugs.        

If one looks at other models of internet usage (Europe) it should cause most thoughtful citizens to ponder why the US has one of the slowest and "clumsy" high speed systems in the developed world. Perhaps it's because internet signal providers desperately want to "ration" what is, in fact, a pure commodity. The porn filter is simply a "straw man" to put the signal carrier in front of the content provider.

Now that we have 3G (and I suspect even better technology on the horizon) along with the ability to slice the spectrum without slowing it's delivery, the cost of access (everywhere) should quickly be reduced close to zero. Of course the meaning of the above is that:

1. Cell phone cost should be based on the tech in the phone, not the cost of getting on the towers.

2. Land lines (including cable), should disappear. If all cable programming is digital, why do we need a separate delivery system (i.e. the box)?

3. If bandwidth is ubiquitous, why do we need an FCC at all?

One can only hope that 2 or 3 years into this administration we will look back to the Bush FCC, and declare, "Thank the gods, we don't 'do God' anymore."

This can be stopped.On Jan. 20th,2009 these puritanical idiots are no longer in charge.Sanity is in fashion finally or am I missing something?

I agree that censoring this content would be very difficult. And I am also against the government telling people what they can and can’t look at. However I do have to disagree with this article because the fact that people are getting it for free.

Or more importantly someone else (or business) is paying for it for you. Similar to the example given:

“Here are your food stamps, poor people! Now, only buy vegetables and low-fat protein sources — no birthday cake or Yodels!”

I am totally good with this. When our money goes to pay for your food that now makes “Us” your employer. I expect the government to put stipulations on what is given away for free. If you want cup cakes, cigarettes, beer, or naked pictures then you need to get a job. In the meantime you can deal with healthy foods and internet that has sub par entertainment aspects.    

Oh great... the next great debate will be what defines "porn".  I can't wait for those rules, because you know, the FCC is so clear and concise with their definitions. (that's sarcasm you hear). 

And where does this filtering end?  Should we filter hate sites, or cults?  How about anti-government web sites?  This is a real slippery slope.  Government controlled and filtered internet - sounds like the FCC is taking some tips from China.  

To implement this would be a technical nightmare if nothing else.

Porn is perversion on video, and the people who perform are just legal prostitutes and should not be easily accessible. I, as a former porn user, will admit that porn indeed has chamged my attitude towards women in a negative way, maybe even violent so it does affect us in a negative way so give them the .xxx domain but reduce its use. Everyone else on here are just users who can't go out there and get the real thing, wimps.

Hey FCC, Back the #%#@ off my porn.

What gets me most about the "porn" thing is this; WHY is it ok for our children to see graphic VIOlence but NOT two people having sex, or just plain naked people?  WHY?  Help me to understand this cause I don't understand why violence is ok but porn/sex is not.

One look at Kevin Martin and I know why he wants smut filters; He can't stop yankin his own chain so he wants to stop you, or try!  The Internet should always remain as free as possible.  Examples of legislative hypocracy? Just  a quick glance through the news of the last 8 years will show you examples like Eliot Spitzer, Mark Foley, the point is, as often as not the persons most violently opposed to a given thing are themselves addicted to that thing.  This guy should be removed from his post on mere suspicion of being a wanker.;)

Haven't we learned anything? Nothing is free. If this bandwidth is purchased it will have to be paid for. One way or another its costs will be passed on. Noble to provide access to others but why should I pay for it. If service is to be provided and porn helps pay for it than so be it. We haven't learned that we can't govern morality either.

Where is the ACLU when you realy need them?

You took a ridiculousy simple question with a ready-made example already available to you and made it an 'issue'.  Free TV is regulated so that kids can't turn on the TV and see hardcore pornography, so how is it odd to you that free Internet would be regulated?  They are the public's airwaves and just because some of us don't mind the occasional nudity, a lot of the population does. 

As almost every 'article' written by Helen Popkin...this one is terrible.  Helen, you can't write.  Please stop!!!  You try way too hard to be funny and clever and you're neither:

"Slow Internet with no naughty bits?  Where do I sign?!"

Yeah, I know I'm in America when I read something like this.  There is a chance for the entire country to have access to the internet at no cost, except for the porn, and everyone is outraged because they can't have the porn.  Here's a question:  how much porn can you see on free internet right now?  None... because there isn't free internet.  It's all being paid for, either by you, or by mommy and daddy, or by an employer.  This internet won't be free either.  The companies that take part in the auction still have to pay for that bandwidth, they just can't charge you to use it.

So you have to have your porn?  No problem.  There are lots of internet services out there that you can pay to use and see whatever your heart desires.  If someone else (the FCC) is making something available to you free of charge, you don't get to piss and moan because it isn't as "good" as what you used to pay $50 a month for.  When you were teenagers driving daddy's car you probably griped about it not being cool enough, didn't you?

Oh, and as for the stupid line about

Here are your food stamps, poor people! Now, only buy vegetables and low-fat protein sources — no birthday cake or Yodels!

Well, you can probably buy anything edible with food stamps.  You can't buy cigarettes and alcohol with them.  The reason is that the service is provided so that people who can't afford food don't starve, but some damn dumb people would spend every penny they were given on booze and smokes if they could.

Everyone needs internet access in this day and age, because so much business and information is only available there.  Everyone does not need porn... that's a luxury.  Like food stamps, the goal is to provide needed services to people who can't get it any other way.  That doesn't mean they are entitled to all the non-essential crap that everyone else pays for.

I see here a lot of outrage over censorship, a lot of outrage over the outrage, and a few sensible questions about the feasibility of the concept itself.

What I don't see is outrage over the concept itself, over the idea of a government agency, unelected and unanswerable to the people, auctioning off this airspace (ie making money) to companies and at the same time prohibiting those companies from doing the same with at least part of the airspace. I thought our government was in the business of serving us, not making money in the internet world. Have I missed something?

How about a filter for Popkin stories.  Talk about saying something in 10 lines that could be said in 1.

I can't wait for free internet. As a single mom with kids and a night school student, I can get free. I won't complain, even if it has popups. :)

How bout charge a fee for uncensored material? Those of us that need free, we won't mind.  :)

This is a slippery slope. First they have to define porn -does this include Renaissance art and illustrations from more prurient aspects of bible stories? I guess the government does not want us peons to access other troubling information contrary to THEIR ideals (or Mr. Martin's ideals) -which may later extend to censoring criticism of the government). Don't forget WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT -it is time to take it back. They should not be the high-priests of mind control. Sure pornography can offend people -but then if there were no lust or stimulus to induce the same -how many of us would be here. This self-righteous, we-know-best for-you bureaucratic tripe with MY money no-less makes me sick. What does the statue of liberty stand for? If certain internet surfers want to stare at porn all day -so be it. It was a slippery, propaganda slope in Nazi Germany and it looks to be the same here.

Common viewer, (myself my dad, most people) should maybe create and install tier own systems, DUH. companies who pay utilities created these systems, like water, electric, railroads etc...having said that, now the FCC is geting involved, perhaps you wont be able to access porno,,,OH well, the deal is, these infrastructures should be regulated. and if provided free, they can do whatever,,,no laws state "we will provide and maintain free infrastructure and provide porno" I am amazed when tax season comes around,,,the people say damn taxes...then say my road should be repaved...I said well, dont pay taxes..then you can repave your section of raod your self, if not, maybe the post office will dump off your mail at the closes maintained road...DUH

Wow. I am so surprised. Has the moral standars of the country dropped so low? Im assuming from most of these posts that the majority of you are avid porn watchers, and cant possibly bare the fact that a small portion of the web will be porn free. It most definitly is a reflection of your moral standards, that you blame "the government" for "infringing on your rights of freedom" by setting some small degree of moral code. If you absolutely must have your porn fix, why dont you get it where you have been getting it all along? does it really bother you all THAT MUCH that people might want an internet connection in their homes WITHOUT porn? Must you take your pathetically low moral standards and inflict them on everyone else? How sad. Thank you for reaffirming how low this country really has stooped. and allow me to say- THANK YOU TO THE FCC FOR FINALLY STANDING UP AND DOING SOMETHING PROPER, EVEN THOUGH ITS SO CONTROVERCIAL. And by the way, to MATT BOYNTON- the definition of porn is simple. NUDITY. Got it? Its not so difficult, complex, and certainly not slippery. Get your heads out of the toilets, wake up, and  realize how sick you have become.

has anyone  read the paragraph about the government auctioning off 25-MHz of wireless airspace ? how about the part that the winner must make 25 percent of that unused wireless spectrum available for free broadband access ?  the entity with the highest bid in the auction ,not the government , will gain control of 25-MHz of wireless airspace . of that 25-MHz , 75% can be used for paid wireless internet access , 25% must be used for free wireless internet access . now , free wireless internet access , for all intents and puropses is the same as free wireless television and free wireless A.M. and F.M. radio . anyone with a computor , television or a radio can have access to the respective services . therefore , free internet will be subject to the same regulations as free t.v. and free radio . that's the FCC'S only concern on the matter . now , as far as our tax dollars , the entity that "owns" the rights to that air space will be the ones footing the bill for this free service . you see , the old analog system uses a huge amount of bandwidth . with all the cell phones , satellite t.v. etc . the airwaves are getting gridlocked like the freeway at rush hour . digital is compressed using less bandwidth , like adding another ten lanes to the freeway . appearantly there was some band width left over , so the FCC is going to auction it off like army surplus or DEA with seized property .