Fox News Forgets Net Neutrality in Story on Net Neutrality

[Modbert]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjwbFGRzpK4]YouTube - Fox News Forgets Net Neutrality in Story on Net Neutrality?[/ame]

Such dishonest framing and partisan reporting in what is suppose to be "fair and balanced news reporting" is very dangerous. Not only did Fox fail to identify that the person they had supporting this report was a Conservative/Libertarian but they completely did not mention Net Neutrality.

A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams

There would be no "running of the internet" if this were the pass.

In fact, Vinton Gray "Vint" Cerf who is known as the "Father of the Internet", co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and Vice President of Google (which also supports this) has spoken in favor of Net Neutrality.

In fact, in one hearing on the subject in 2006, Vinton said:

"Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success."

Now who's opinion shall I follow in this case? The Father of the Internet or John McCain who relies on his wife to use the computer?

John McCain Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer (Video) | Mother Jones

I Report, You Decide.

 

[Modbert]

In More News, Facebook and Twitter have joined Google in support of Net Neutrality:

Facebook and Twitter Join Google in Support of Net Neutrality | Ethiopian News - EthioPlanet.com, Ethiopian Politics, Entertainment, Ethiopia

 

[Oddball]

Net neutrality is a legislative "solution" to problems that are already being taken care of in the courts.

But I guess hiding behind the Fakes News strawman is a much more fun than discussing the topic in a *ahem* neutral manner, huh?

 

[Oddball]

In More News, Facebook and Twitter have joined Google in support of Net Neutrality:

Facebook and Twitter Join Google in Support of Net Neutrality | Ethiopian News - EthioPlanet.com, Ethiopian Politics, Entertainment, Ethiopia

....as Big Search Engine goes running to Big Daddy Big Gubmint to fight its battles against Big ISP.

I sooooo smell a big fat rat here.

 

[Modbert]

Net neutrality is a legislative "solution" to problems that are already being taken care of in the courts.

But I guess hiding behind the Fakes News strawman is a much more fun than discussing the topic in a *ahem* neutral manner, huh?

Except this is just an extra measure. It's not like this is going to be the Government controlling the Internet like Fox News makes it out to be.

Google, Yahoo!, Vonage, Ebay, Amazon IAC/InterActiveCorp, Earthlink, Microsoft, and Steve Wozniak (founder of Apple) are all in support of legislation.

If Government WERE to control the Internet, these are the companies that would have the most to lose. So obviously them supporting Net Neutrality is a sign of something is wrong with the Cato Institute's argument in this.

 

[Oddball]

An "extra measure"?...Shirley, you can't say that with a straight face.

And if you believe that our benevolent dictators are going to pass legislation on this which doesn't give them some back door to rule the internet by decree, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Modbert]

An "extra measure"?...Shirley, you can't say that with a straight face.

And if you believe that our benevolent dictators are going to pass legislation on this which doesn't give them some back door to rule the internet by decree, I have a bridge to sell you.

You're playing the what if game now. When said bill comes up and has said provision, you show me. Then I'll be against such legislation. However, until that time, Net Neutrality is a good thing. By definition, it is a good thing. A lot of the major companies involved with computers and the internet are for this legislation. THOSE companies would have the most to lose if the Government controlled the Internet. I'm debating the present, you're debating the what if future.

Furthermore, Fox's reporting on this issue was not only horrible but dishonest. AND this wasn't reported by Glenn Beck, it was on what is said by many to be the "fair and balanced" news. If you call that fair and balance, I got a bridge to sell YOU that's located in Alaska. Real cheap too.

 

[Oddball]

I'm playing no "what if" game whatsoever....I understand the nature of tyrants.

That we have Big User squaring off against Big ISP tells me more than I need to know about this, Fakes News nonwithstanding.

Big User is merely running to to the gubmint to fight their battles pre-emptively for them. Of course, the Godfather will more than likely return to them for a yet-to-be-determined "special favor" as some time in the future....Bet on it.

 

[Modbert]

I'm playing no "what if" game whatsoever....I understand the nature of tyrants.

That we have Big User squaring off against Big ISP tells me more than I need to know about this, Fakes News nonwithstanding.

Big User is merely running to to the gubmint to fight their battles pre-emptively for them. Of course, the Godfather will more than likely return to them for a yet-to-be-determined "special favor" as some time in the future....Bet on it.

Yep, you just keep thinking that.

Meanwhile, in reality:

Surprise: McCain Biggest Beneficiary of Telco/ISP Lobby Money - PC World

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast over the past two years, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).

McCain has no reason to put this bill out right? No secret intentions? Right? Two to one says the companies wrote the bill anyway. Remember, McCain can't even use the computer, never mind the internet by himself.

 

[xsited1]

LiberalViewer is definitely against Fox News. I don't have a problem with that. However, do I believe a guy from a huge Internet company like Google or do I believe Fox News? That's not a good question since large corporations have frequently used the government for their own benefit (called Crony Capitalism). Fox's guest, Jim Harper, makes some good points about Net Neutrality which LiberalViewer doesn't show. Here's a great discussion from a radio program about Net Neutrality with Jim Harper. This is from the same guy of people who has a big problem with big government organizations like Homeland Security and maintains this site: WashingtonWatch.com - Welcome to WashingtonWatch.com. Unfortunately, LiberalViewer, like so many on the Left, like to focus on Fox News rather than the dangers of big government pushed on the American by people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Why? Partisanship. They don't want to believe that their Leftist ("Big Government") leaders are part of the problem.

Everyone who believes big government needs to be watched should listen to this.

Jim Harper discusses net neutrality on WJR's The Frank Beckmann Show (Detroit, MI) | Cato Institute: Media Highlights

 

[Oddball]

I'm playing no "what if" game whatsoever....I understand the nature of tyrants.

That we have Big User squaring off against Big ISP tells me more than I need to know about this, Fakes News nonwithstanding.

Big User is merely running to to the gubmint to fight their battles pre-emptively for them. Of course, the Godfather will more than likely return to them for a yet-to-be-determined "special favor" as some time in the future....Bet on it.

Yep, you just keep thinking that.

Meanwhile, in reality:

Surprise: McCain Biggest Beneficiary of Telco/ISP Lobby Money - PC World

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast over the past two years, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).

McCain has no reason to put this bill out right? No secret intentions? Right? Two to one says the companies wrote the bill anyway. Remember, McCain can't even use the computer, never mind the internet by himself.

Reducto ad hominem.

 

[Oddball]

LiberalViewer is definitely against Fox News. I don't have a problem with that. However, do I believe a guy from a huge Internet company like Google or do I believe Fox News? That's not a good question since large corporations have frequently used the government for their own benefit (called Crony Capitalism). Fox's guest, Jim Harper, makes some good points about Net Neutrality which LiberalViewer doesn't show. Here's a great discussion from a radio program about Net Neutrality with Jim Harper. This is from the same guy of people who has a big problem with big government organizations like Homeland Security and maintains this site: WashingtonWatch.com - Welcome to WashingtonWatch.com. Unfortunately, LiberalViewer, like so many on the Left, like to focus on Fox News rather than the dangers of big government pushed on the American by people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Why? Partisanship. They don't want to believe that their Leftist ("Big Government") leaders are part of the problem.

Everyone who believes big government needs to be watched should listen to this.

Jim Harper discusses net neutrality on WJR's The Frank Beckmann Show (Detroit, MI) | Cato Institute: Media Highlights

Indeed.

The OP starts out with a ad hominem against Fox, for not telling the story favorably to the way the OP would have them tell it....Therefore, OP is right.

Later, OP launches ad hominem against the doddering old fool McCain, who doesn't know his ass from a hot rock when it comes to tech. Since the OP knows marginally more about tech than McCain, he is right by default.

This tells me all I need to know about the "net neutrality" pimps.

 

[Modbert]

Reducto ad hominem.

Not at all. You're questioning the Corporations like Google's motivations behind this. So it's only fair that one should question John McCain's motivations. In this case, he's being paid off by these companies to make such a bill. When such a bill comes up, that is very important to know.

 

[Modbert]

Indeed.

The OP starts out with a ad hominem against Fox, for not telling the story the OP would have them tell it....Therefore, OP is right.

Later, OP launches ad hominem against the doddering old fool McCain, who doesn't know his ass from a hot rock when it comes to tech. Since the OP knows marginally more about tech than McCain, he is right by default.

This tells me all I need to know about the "net neutrality" pimps.

Just don't want to admit that Fox was wrong huh Dude? The fact they didn't mention Net Neutrality in a story about Net Neutrality doesn't bother you? Or the fact that there NEWS PROGRAMMING was one-sided? I guess not when you agree with it huh?

As for an Ad Hominem against McCain, not so. I just find the irony of it that McCain knows nothing about tech yet here he is trying to make a law with justification that he knows what he is going on. Meanwhile, here in reality, he's being paid off by these specific companies for this bill and every other major company like Microsoft, Google, Amazon.com, Ebay, etc are all for Net Neutrality.

 

[Oddball]

You've dealt in little more than attacks against those who oppose gubmint involvement here, beyond the courts....Which is the proper venue for these issues to be ironed out. Therefore, it's a given that you're extremely short on logic.

Pointing to McCain and the Fakes News story are deflections and distractions from that fact.

 

[Modbert]

You've dealt in little more than attacks against those who oppose gubmint involvement here, beyond the courts....Which is the proper venue for these issues to be ironed out. Therefore, it's a given that you're extremely short on logic.

You're the one who constantly played the "what if" game here in this thread. Your second post was questioning Google's moves in this. Your third was accusing the Government of trying to control the Internet. Same thing for your fourth post. Your fifth and sixth posts were attacks against me. As is the one I am currently quoting.

The only one who offered up any sort of argument was xsited1's who links I will look at. All you did was attack, attack, and attack. So for you to be throwing stones while you been launching them from your glass house is hilarious.

 

[Oddball]

Attack Fox...Attack McCain...Attack me or anyone else who challenges your position.

The weakness of your position is beyond evident.

 

[Annie]

LiberalViewer is definitely against Fox News. I don't have a problem with that. However, do I believe a guy from a huge Internet company like Google or do I believe Fox News? That's not a good question since large corporations have frequently used the government for their own benefit (called Crony Capitalism). Fox's guest, Jim Harper, makes some good points about Net Neutrality which LiberalViewer doesn't show. Here's a great discussion from a radio program about Net Neutrality with Jim Harper. This is from the same guy of people who has a big problem with big government organizations like Homeland Security and maintains this site: WashingtonWatch.com - Welcome to WashingtonWatch.com. Unfortunately, LiberalViewer, like so many on the Left, like to focus on Fox News rather than the dangers of big government pushed on the American by people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Why? Partisanship. They don't want to believe that their Leftist ("Big Government") leaders are part of the problem.

Everyone who believes big government needs to be watched should listen to this.

Jim Harper discusses net neutrality on WJR's The Frank Beckmann Show (Detroit, MI) | Cato Institute: Media Highlights

I mean how could the government mess up the internet?

Net Neutrality: A Brief Primer - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

....

Neutrality advocates often portray the policy as a way of keeping the Internet free from corporate control. But the truth is that there are big corporations, and big corporate interests, on both sides. On the pro-neutrality side are the companies whose businesses operate at the edge of the web: Silicon Valley Web services like Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Twitter. On the other side are the companies who manage the Internet's core: ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

Much of the debate comes down to a power struggle between these two interests: Will network owners and administrators be allowed to determine access rules, prices, and traffic-management mechanisms on the networks they control? Or will the government step in and regulate those networks, forcing them to operate more or less as dumb pipes, thus shielding the edge-network, web-service companies whose business models rely on those networks from management practices that they don't like?

With the installation of Julius Genachowski in the top spot at the FCC, it increasingly looks like the answer will be the latter.

Reason is no stranger to the topic of Net neutrality. I wrote up Genachowski's first big neutrality address here, and warned that the FCC might revive the idea of extending neutrality to wireless networks here. In 2006, Julian Sanchez argued that "there's no need for new laws to keep the Internet open" here.

Reason Foundation's Steve Titch argued that Net neutrality regulation would "hurt consumers, degrade the Internet, stifle voices and kill innovation" here. He also wrote a longer report on the potential problems with enforced neutrality here. And Adrian Moore pointed out that, despite all the fuss, there's scant evidence of any—much less widespread—blocking by ISPs here.

 

[Modbert]

LiberalViewer is definitely against Fox News. I don't have a problem with that. However, do I believe a guy from a huge Internet company like Google or do I believe Fox News? That's not a good question since large corporations have frequently used the government for their own benefit (called Crony Capitalism). Fox's guest, Jim Harper, makes some good points about Net Neutrality which LiberalViewer doesn't show. Here's a great discussion from a radio program about Net Neutrality with Jim Harper. This is from the same guy of people who has a big problem with big government organizations like Homeland Security and maintains this site: WashingtonWatch.com - Welcome to WashingtonWatch.com. Unfortunately, LiberalViewer, like so many on the Left, like to focus on Fox News rather than the dangers of big government pushed on the American by people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Why? Partisanship. They don't want to believe that their Leftist ("Big Government") leaders are part of the problem.

Everyone who believes big government needs to be watched should listen to this.

Jim Harper discusses net neutrality on WJR's The Frank Beckmann Show (Detroit, MI) | Cato Institute: Media Highlights

Right off the bat, the host is offering up his opinion about how private enterprise has done a good job. Except if it has, this would of not had needed to be done:

On August 1, 2008, the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason.

- Wikipedia

(Surprise, Surprise, Jim Harper brings this up.)

As for it being called Net Neutrality, that is the modern term that came about from a 2003 paper but the definition of what brings has always been the same.

Jim Harper is trying to say the internet will be slowed down, I doubt it. As for the FCC, I have never liked it. I have never been a proponent of it. However, the whole "Government being involved in the internet" is being overplayed.

As for the callers:

First one of course focuses on "oh the FCC will eliminate the right wing" and everything like that. Except what happens if a Republican is in charge of the White House or Congress? Does that suddenly mean the "left wing" media will in turn be eliminated. Then we'll have no media left. Conspiracy Theory.

The ISPs have a monopoly on this currently. The consumer doesn't have any real say in what goes on. In fact, there is currently only one or two serious broadband competitors at the moment. So the whole idea of there being competition being taken away is ludacris when there is no competition currently. Hell, the ISPs oversell you how much bandwidth all the time. In fact, most people likely use only a small portion of their bandwidth.

As much as like Jim Harper likes to believe that the consumer does have a say, we don't. The Comcast situation if it were resolved by Comcast itself was because of the amount of bad publicity it received. This will not happen in every case.

As for the whole "Obama having a Emergency shut down button for the Internet", you'll find myself disagreeing with such a propose completely. This is also different from this topic right here.

I find a problem with that Net Neutrality was never defined in this video specifically.

Jim Harper certainly seems to be a smart fellow, however I find this video to be lacking in several areas. Then I see the host towards in throw "Oh then we'll see taxation next."

Wrong. As for Obama thinking supposedly that he has the right to control or shut down the internet. He NEVER said such a thing. Just because Jay R is offering up such a proposal, does not mean "this, this, or this" about Obama. It's dishonest.

Sure, we all own the internet because of servers. However, the controllers of said servers have plenty of power over us.

In all, I disagree with the Cato Institute for the most part on this issue.

 

[Modbert]

Attack Fox...Attack McCain...Attack me or anyone else who challenges your position.

The weakness of your position is beyond evident.

Except you attacked Obama, Google, and Myself because I challenged your position. Once again, you're in that glass house throwing stones. As for attacking Fox News, I'm not. I'm sorry that reporting the facts is "attacking" people now. I'm sorry that stating the truth about McCain is "attacking."

There is a difference between reporting the facts and attacking there Dude. Sorry you don't like reality in this case.

I have given evidence and arguments with evidence to back up my claim. You've given attacks in just about every single post of yours and "what if" arguments.