8 ms·

What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so.

by zxcvcxz 12y ago

What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. All people have the right to connect as many devices as they want to the internet, and connect their own server(s) on their own network to the public internet, and allow others to use their servers for any and all purposes including to connect to the internet. People have the right to serve and distribute content on the public internet from their own network or server and any other network/server giving them permission to do so. People have a right to serve and distribute content in a way that a maximum number of devices can access it with ease. I believe the rapid social change we're experiencing regarding progressive thought (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, stem cells, etc) is because people have these rights. The longer we have these rights the more our society will change as a collective and many of the mistakes that the government and other overseers have made will be corrected.

warfangle 12y ago
Fortunately, radio is covered under Section III of the telecommunications act and not Section II, which is limited to common carriers (of which radio, television, and cable television obviously are not).
nknighthb 12y ago
"Broadcast" and "hook up a server" are in no way similar under the relevant laws and regulations. Radio broadcast is licensed because of the general problem of limited spectrum. The Internet's point-to-point nature has no such problem. Meanwhile, the FCC already regulates all electrical devices -- including servers, your PC, and even light bulbs -- to prevent interference. So, bad news, your fear came true -- in 1934.
rndmind 12y ago
Although I am similarly skeptical, this type of regulation would be next to impossible when considering the architecture of computer networks.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. Both the regulatory rules and the authorizing statute behind that requirement are related to broadcast, and have nothing to do with Tite II classification; and not even all radio requires that (there is unlicensed spectrum.) So, while that's a fine thing to worry about, its not really related to the FCC action classifying retail broadband as a Title II telecommunication service.
whoopdedo 12y ago
Radio is a limited resource that needs to be allocated fairly. Bandwidth is a commodity that you get as much as you pay for. Title II classification has nothing to do with radio licensing. If anything, doesn't this make it easier to set up a home server? Current ISP contracts* include a clause saying that I'm not allowed to use a connected computer as a "server". But didn't the FCC already say that a Title II common carrier can't prevent someone from operating a telephone BBS? So if this goes through you'll be free to host a home server. [*] I say "contract" except I and perhaps most people don't actually have a contract with your ISP. Even though they'll lie and say you do if you try to cancel service or dispute a charge.
URSpider94 12y ago
This is exactly what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent, though not in the way you think. Without net neutrality, we would evolve towards a pay-to-play world in which you could hook up your server to the Internet, but nobody would be able to download your content unless you paid their broadband provider for bandwidth access. With net neutrality, the government is preserving your right to be heard just as much as the billionaire down the street. That's the entire point.

by zxcvcxz 12y ago

warfangle 12y ago

Fortunately, radio is covered under Section III of the telecommunications act and not Section II, which is limited to common carriers (of which radio, television, and cable television obviously are not).

nknighthb 12y ago

"Broadcast" and "hook up a server" are in no way similar under the relevant laws and regulations. Radio broadcast is licensed because of the general problem of limited spectrum. The Internet's point-to-point nature has no such problem. Meanwhile, the FCC already regulates all electrical devices -- including servers, your PC, and even light bulbs -- to prevent interference. So, bad news, your fear came true -- in 1934.

rndmind 12y ago

Although I am similarly skeptical, this type of regulation would be next to impossible when considering the architecture of computer networks.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. Both the regulatory rules and the authorizing statute behind that requirement are related to broadcast, and have nothing to do with Tite II classification; and not even all radio requires that (there is unlicensed spectrum.) So, while that's a fine thing to worry about, its not really related to the FCC action classifying retail broadband as a Title II telecommunication service.

whoopdedo 12y ago

Radio is a limited resource that needs to be allocated fairly. Bandwidth is a commodity that you get as much as you pay for. Title II classification has nothing to do with radio licensing. If anything, doesn't this make it easier to set up a home server? Current ISP contracts* include a clause saying that I'm not allowed to use a connected computer as a "server". But didn't the FCC already say that a Title II common carrier can't prevent someone from operating a telephone BBS? So if this goes through you'll be free to host a home server. [*] I say "contract" except I and perhaps most people don't actually have a contract with your ISP. Even though they'll lie and say you do if you try to cancel service or dispute a charge.

URSpider94 12y ago

This is exactly what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent, though not in the way you think. Without net neutrality, we would evolve towards a pay-to-play world in which you could hook up your server to the Internet, but nobody would be able to download your content unless you paid their broadband provider for bandwidth access. With net neutrality, the government is preserving your right to be heard just as much as the billionaire down the street. That's the entire point.