Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[Kat]

Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.

I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.

Re what you said above:
I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.

He doesn't have to do it to try to lane a new job, but someone with a media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.

I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.

No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?

He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.

 

[DiveCon]

Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.

I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.

Re what you said above:
I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.

He doesn't have to do it to try to land a new job, but someone with a media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.

I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.

get your tinfoil hat

 

[edthecynic]

I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.

Re what you said above:
I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.

He doesn't have to do it to try to lane a new job, but someone with a media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.

I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.

No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?

He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.

If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.

The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.

 

[Kat]

He doesn't have to do it to try to lane a new job, but someone with a media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.

I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.

No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?

He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.

If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.

The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.

I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.

 

[edthecynic]

No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?

He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.

If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.

The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.

I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.

In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role

The cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.


On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract, saying his remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

 

[Kat]

If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.

The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.

I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.

In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role

The cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.


On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract, saying his remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR How do you know an atty didn't look at it? Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.

 

[edthecynic]

I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.

In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role

The cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.


On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract, saying his remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR How do you know an atty didn't look at it? Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.

I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protect his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.

Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.

The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

 

[Kat]

In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role

The cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.


On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract, saying his remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR How do you know an atty didn't look at it? Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.

I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protecting his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.

Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.

The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

I distrust a lot. I am glad I do not distrust everything. I would not want to live that way. It has to be lonely.

 

[DiveCon]

you have rarely been right

 

[Kat]

you have rarely been right

Pardon?

 

[edthecynic]

Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR How do you know an atty didn't look at it? Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.

I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protecting his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.

Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.

The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

I distrust a lot. I am glad I do not distrust everything. I would not want to live that way. It has to be lonely.

This is a crazy world. Believe it or not there are women who are fans of jailed murders.
I'm not quite that bad, .... so there is always hope.

Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary

 

[Kat]

I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protecting his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.

Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.

The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

I distrust a lot. I am glad I do not distrust everything. I would not want to live that way. It has to be lonely.

This is a crazy world. Believe it or not there are women who are fans of jailed murders.
I'm not quite that bad, .... so there is always hope.

Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary

This is true

 

[DiveCon]

you have rarely been right

Pardon?

that was for edthemoron

 

[Kat]

you have rarely been right

Pardon?

that was for edthemoron

Oh. You posted right after me, so I didn't know.

 

[edthecynic]

Pardon?

that was for edthemoron

Oh. You posted right after me, so I didn't know.

It was his lame attempt to provoke me and divert the thread.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Here's the thing: conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.

Go figure.

Oh well, NPR has egg on it's face...the neocon driven GOP is trying to score voting points by advocating defunding of NPR....and Juan Williams just a got a shitload of a raise to be the new token liberal whipping boy for Fox News.

God bless us....every one.

Yes, I agree the 'Defund NPR' effort is a wasteful red herring promoted by those who lean right. However, I do believe a 112th Congress looking for a good faith effort to cut spending, which is why they are being elected, can demonstrate their comity with the electorate by abolishing the CPB (Corp. for Public Broadcasting). A good way to establish your desired 'Fairness' is to rid ourselves of government sponsored media. After all, government sponsoring of just about anything, other than those constitutional responsibilities, is undesirable for the simple reason government is not run by "angels" it is run by humans like you and I. The less influence they are able to exert upon us the better.

Don't be too concerned about Juan's new contract. That’s FOX’s problem not that of us taxpayers. Surely you can see the beauty of ridding ourselves of CPB, for if the CPB is no longer we taxpayers won’t be footing the bill for an outdated media outlet. The argument that has initiated and perpetuated CPB (the public needs their alternate programming) has been amply invalidated with the advent of cable/satellite TV and, especially, the internet.

Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to ‘regulate’ it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.

JM

I'm for the government phasing out all funding--go slowly as necessary to avoid unnecessary pain to those the government has made dependent on the funding--that doesn't fit into its Constitutionally mandated obvious duties. Certainly the government should have no control or influence over the media other than its Constitutionally mandated oversight to ensure a free press. Certainly government funding of any part of the media invites temptation to coerce or put pressure on that same media.

As for a free internet, that's probably going to be the next sticky wicket. Let's get the election on Tuesday out of the way, and then maybe you or I can initiate a thread on that important subject?

Yeh, we probably agree with each other. Personally, well... let me just say that the GOP or at least its conservative element should take a lesson on the Dems rapidity and midwifery in passing their leftist wish list. Just read an interesting article about white blue collar voters and what pleases them and what scares them RE candidates. Perhaps that and institutional change RE conservative thinking can be considered. Election coverage starts about 6PM EDT (bout 1 hr) so I'll get some supper and then enjoy the schadenfreudeliciousness.

Later dudette,

JM

 

[edthecynic]

Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to ‘regulate’ it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.

JM

Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!

Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.


Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.



Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.



What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?

AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.


What's happening in Congress?

In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.
Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.
But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination. That’s why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.

 

[DiveCon]

Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to ‘regulate’ it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.

JM

Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!

Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.


Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.



Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.



What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?

AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.


What's happening in Congress?

In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.
Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.
But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination. That’s why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.

ed, you fucking pathetic idiot
you found a PRO net neutrality site
BIASED

 

[edthecynic]

Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to ‘regulate’ it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.

JM

Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!

Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.


Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.



Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.



What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?

AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.


What's happening in Congress?

In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.
Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.
But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination. That’s why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.

ed, you fucking pathetic idiot
you found a PRO net neutrality site
BIASED

Gee what a surprise that you would be too STUPID to recognize the truth from any source. NOT

Of course, everybody knows the last thing CON$ want is free access to all information. CON$ervatism cannot survive in the arena of ideas so all nonCON$ervative ideas must be blocked from the internet.

Allbritton backs broadband reclassification, net neutrality - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

In comments filed with the FCC on Friday, Allbritton's senior vice president for legal and strategic affairs, Jerald Fritz, argues that without net-neutrality rules Internet service providers will be able to discriminate against competitors and control what news reaches consumers.


"An Internet controlled by gatekeepers with incentives to favor their own content — a very real possibility without the FCC’s intervention — would have stymied past growth, and may very well stunt wired and mobile Internet innovation far into the future should broadband providers be left entirely unregulated," Fritz writes. "This situation would be exacerbated where carriers also provide competitive program offerings."

 

[Kat]

Would you two please...











STOP IT!!!!