[governance] Free Web Plan Being Pushed by FCC Head

Mon Dec 15 11:10:46 EST 2008

Hi Parminder et al, and well yes,

but still possibly linking managed-access to potential censorship, in
different guise, and a surely attractive one because on its face free of
charge - there is still the matter of potentially conditioning people to a
subset.  I am not saying that is operative here, again, just asking what
y'all think.

Consider for instance writings on Newspeak (narrower) versus Oldspeak
(fuller)  and other restricted / restrictive / restricting linguistic
domains, as illustrative.

We may want to consider that *Discourse* can condition *thought* as well as
the other way around.  So in Orwellion visions of limited vocabularies, or
"Basic English" e.g. a population can be conditioned under the operation of
excluded matter.  Subset Educational infusions, etc.

And "after a while" a more expanded set can become 'unthinkable'.  Untaught,
unsought, unthoiught about

And a non-small by-the-way (btw) this is a pretty good forum*  for
discussing various senses of accessibility, overt paths to "knowledge" and
more subtle routes, and whether widely open or blocked one way or t'other. .

* Thanks for it,

With best wishes, and *Respectfully Interfacing,* Linda.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

> > And PLEASE note that this is a CENSORED internet, which is precisely what
> some of us fear will be the price of government-provided "internet for
> all."
> (Milton)
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no necessary connection between publicly provided net  and a
> censored net. The analogy often applied earlier comparing a 'right to the
> Internet' with the right to education is useful here. Public education has
> mostly meant some kind of a public curriculum. States and communities have
> dealt with the issue of inappropriate kinds of control over 'public
> curriculum' in a nuanced and dynamic manner. No one has ever proposed
> scrapping public education provisions to deal with the problems associated
> with state's role in determining/ influencing curriculum.
>
>
>
> The comparison with right to education and state's role in
> curriculum/content development however ends here. There perhaps was (is) a
> structural and also a social requirement for state's involvement in
> curriculum decisions in terms of public education. Internet however is
> entirely different. Any amount of different content, of any number of
> different types, *can* be accommodated *equally* on the Internet. However,
> public support is still required to provide 'equalizing' conditions for
> production of all, and different, kinds of content. (Canada recently has
> announced some such provisions to ensure there is sufficient "Canadian"
> content on the Internet, as the government used to do to ensure enough
> Canadian content on TV and Film media.)
>
>
>
> IT for Change just now concluded an international workshop on 'ICTs for
> participatory local development' where the combination of - as well as
> nuances and dynamics of - 'public provisioning' along with 'local community
> decision making' was emphasized to deal with equity and social justice
> aspects of the emerging information society. The two are not exclusive, in
> fact they need to complement one another, and public provisioning has to be
> done in a manner that strengthens rather than weakens 'local community
> decision making'. The same extends to the issue of expanding individual's
> freedoms through public action, something which underpins Sen's capability
> rights approach and UNDP's Human Development approach to development policy
> based on Sen's work.
>
>
>
> As for some members skepticism about public provisioning on the Internet;
> who proposes what solution depends of where one is placed. Societies where
> markets are in a good position to deal with the dynamics of an emerging
> information (or Internet-based) society would have a different take on this
> issue than societies where these dynamics are furthering inequalities, both
> within the societies and vis a vis the Northern societies. To the extent
> that we are speaking in terms that are sought to be applied across the
> world, we need to be sensitive to social and political realities of the
> whole world.
>
>
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
> Subject: RE: [governance] Free Web Plan Being Pushed by FCC Head
>
>
>
> And PLEASE note that this is a CENSORED internet, which is precisely what
> some of us fear will be the price of government-provided "internet for
> all."
>
>
>
>
>
> Outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is
> pushing for action in December on a plan to offer free, pornography-free
> wireless Internet service to all Americans, despite objections from the
> wireless industry and some consumer groups.
>
> The proposal to allow a no-smut, free wireless Internet service is part
> of a proposal to auction off a chunk of airwaves. The winning bidder
> would be required to set aside a quarter of the airwaves for a free
> Internet service. The winner could establish a paid service that would
> have a fast wireless Internet connection. The free service could be
> slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other
> material not suitable for children. The FCC's proposal mirrors a plan
> offered by M2Z Networks Inc., a start-up backed by Kleiner Perkins
> Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.
>
> Consumer advocates have objected to the FCC's proposed pornography
> filter, while the wireless industry has objected to the entire free
> Internet plan. To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is
> proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.
>
> T-Mobile USA, in particular, has raised concerns. The Deutsche Telekom
> AG unit paid about $4 billion a few years ago for nearby airwaves and
> has complained that the free wireless Internet plan will likely result
> in interference for consumers of its new 3G wireless network. The FCC
> dismissed the company's interference concerns this fall, although
> T-Mobile disagreed with that finding.
>
> --
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change
> www.ITforChange.net <http://www.itforchange.net/>
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>  <http://ITforChange.net <http://itforchange.net/>> http://ITforChange.net<http://itforchange.net/>
>  <http://India.IS-Watch.net <http://india.is-watch.net/>>
> http://India.IS-Watch.net <http://india.is-watch.net/>
>  <http://IS-Watch.net <http://is-watch.net/>> http://IS-Watch.net<http://is-watch.net/>
> *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United
> Nations'
> Economic and Social Council*
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081215/ec34fad3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance