The provider of a free service has a right to dictate the terms of use. However, a government service is NOT free, it is paid for with taxes. And last I checked, producers of content that the FCC deems inappropriate are paying the same taxes as everyone else. (And increasingly in this YouTube generation, that could be almost anyone.)

Filtering is a CLIENT SIDE operation. The FCC isn't doing anything useful specifying what content is filterable. If the government wants to be useful, they can publish a list of recommended web browsers that allow user-specified filtering, e.g. through a list of URL patterns.

The approach of filtering the entire Internet service is of course overkill. It would be like using police to barricade the public roads that lead to an adult film store. The road is yours, paid with your taxes; whether or not you enter the shop is up to you, part of your own, personal filter.

"Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown, once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, ..."

I don't think his assertion is accurate given the number of DirectTV and cable users. There's a market for XM and SIRIUS as well. I think this shows that people pay for things that are better.

I don't agree with the assertion that all Americans (or even "most") will move to free Wi-Fi and drop their current paid access. Wi-Fi is a shared medium, and the more users on it, the worse the performance. What good is free if it's unuseable? IF this comes to pass, I may try the free access, but you can bet I'll still keep my DSL account.

Me neither. I've seen the free Wi-Fi in Mountainview, it was enough to convince me that while it may cause some people to cancel their tethering or EVDO cards, that's about it.

Not Wi-Fi. This is white space. I've heard estimates of 20mbits but I'm not sure if anyone really knows yet.

I hope the FCC does take this lead in trying to censor the net, ahead of requiring all the "private" carriers to do so. Government attempts for increased control have to come sometime, and I'd rather have that happen on a single network so that the workarounds are developed before the majority of people are affected.

Uh... why should anyone be allowed, much less required, to censor the net?

The net threatens the status quo, so the status quo will attempt to control the net. Stronger attempts to put the net.genie back in the bottle are coming.

I most certainly agree that the net should not be censored, but stopping censorship will not happen through democratic means - the herd is easily panicked with tales of child abuse, terrorism, organized crime, etc.

The control will be defeated through technical means - pervasive encryption seamlessly integrated into every day applications, such that filtering "bad stuff" from "normal usage" is impossible.

All I'm saying is that I'd like to see one ISP blaze the trail of total control (and thus become the technical battleground) instead of all of them at once.

Ah, so you'd rather have one established technology to circumvent than numerous being worked on in parallel. Gotcha.

I will stick with my irrational assumption that the Internet at large is safe from this shit, at least until I'm too old to care ;)

More like I'd rather have a sandbox that gives an advance look at what's coming to the rest of the net.

My assumption is only slightly weaker - the long term internet is fine as privacy technology will outpace politics, but there will be turmoil as they battle.

You make an interesting point, analogous to building an immune system slowly from small diseases, so one big disease can't kill you or an entire population. Similarly, small-time malware over the years has made us stronger against major internet attacks by governments or mafias. However, it's a risky path - from what I've read China's firewall has enough holes for business to get by with annoyances, but it is very effective at keeping most people from learning what they shouldn't.

I thought the current requirement was that websites were required to verify age before allowing users to enter?

You make it sound like the ISPs are doing this job, which I wasn't aware that they were.

I believe what you're referring to is the regulations on collecting data on people under 13. Which is why you've got to check those meaningless 'I'm over 13' boxes. Annoying and pointless, but not really censorship.

The bulk data taps are much more worrying, and those are mandated on the ISPs (look what happened to the Qwest CEO). The next thing forced onto the ISPs will be mandatory proxying of certain connections (like the system that recently snagged wikipedia in the UK).

I'm as against censorship as the next guy, but the government is filtering content, they're not taking protocols away from us. Worst case, the government gets the backbone. Wasn't this scenario the design target of the original ARPAnet? Network survivability in the face of massive topography holes?

Its funny, all these right-wingers who bitch and moan about how big government is bad and needs to get eliminated, then turn around and want the government to step in to control everything in our society.

Um, what?

First off, Ayn Rand is dead. She didn't write the article. Second, this is basically an ad hominem argument. I agree Ayn Rand was overrated, but that doesn't mean that this article has some truth to it, despite coming from an objectivist.

I just flagged it and moved on, although I really wish pg would just nuke all the politics stories, because otherwise they start breeding.