Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[DiveCon]

Would you two please...











STOP IT!!!!

NO!!!

you not the boss of me

 

[DiveCon]

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."

Moron, you wouldnt know the truth if it hit you on the nose

 

[Kat]

Would you two please...











STOP IT!!!!

NO!!!

you not the boss of me

Kiss off you whiny a$$. You think name calling is debate? GMAB!

 

[DiveCon]

Would you two please...











STOP IT!!!!

NO!!!

you not the boss of me

Kiss off you whiny a$$. You think name calling is debate? GMAB!

debate???

you think there was a debate here?
its just ed the moron posting bullshit and me calling him a moron for posting bullshit

 

[JamesMorrison]

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

This is quite an encompassing statement with, well, no supporting argument. I suppose I am to find the evidence to your claim in your quote of your posted article? OK, let’s examine some of it

From your post:

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.

Like most things the internet is not free, one pays for access. Then we see that supposedly, this net neutrality or this freedom and openness have “driven economic innovation”. This is simply wrong. The force driving innovation is profit motive, the willingness to provide a good or service which comes from real world economic concerns. Do any of us go to work for “guiding principles” alone? What suppresses innovation is government intrusion. Further, a consumer’s right to this or that object is a false premise, period. The “network's only job” is to satisfy his customer. But the other part of this false choice presented here, the ‘choosing’, is the role of the customer. There is a lot of false information here which leads one to be suspicious as to the author’s intent. Generally, names such as “Net Neutrality” and “Employee Free Choice Act” deserve initial skepticism and further detailed examination.

Truth is, companies develop better, faster, and more reliable technology so they can charge a premium for it (profit). This encourages others to compete and then to develop even better stuff. In the process of competition older technologies become cheaper and cheaper (remember the cost of early Plasma flat screens?)

But here is something that should make us suspicious.

” 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.

And then this:

” 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.

So the order of events according to this narrative is:
1. The free ‘neutral’ internet
2. FCC decides to regulate
3. Congress decides to regulate the regulations

Wouldn’t it just have been simpler to have left the internet alone? Isn’t this a case of legislative creep?

It’s really important to determine the business dynamics here. This piece attempts to demonize internet suppliers but we must ask who is doing the demonizing here? Who would benefit by legislatively hog tying internet suppliers? Well, their consumers like Google and Facebook and others who’s potential downloads or uploads contain massive amounts of data requiring broader more expensive bandwidth. This net neutrality allows those such as Google to use more resources than others thereby slowing the internet. Wouldn’t it be fairer if internet suppliers simply offered different speeds at different prices allowing all a choice? That in a nutshell is all the suppliers want to do. The extra money they make on the high speed they can plow back into innovation for ever increasing bandwidth. When the higher speed comes online what used to be the highest is effectively reduced in cost.

The real problem here is the FCC and its latest desire to reclassify the internet and regulate it as a phone line. Have you looked at a phone bill lately? There is much potential for statist mischief here, from increased cost to all internet users to government regulation of speech. If you are for a well maintained, technically relevant internet free from government control you should reject “Net Neutrality” and the head of the FCC Julius Genachowski’s efforts to regulate it.

JM

P.S. a lot of leftist organizations on the coalition list, dude
Join Us | Save the Internet Freepress included

 

[edthecynic]

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

This is quite an encompassing statement with, well, no supporting argument. I suppose I am to find the evidence to your claim in your quote of your posted article? OK, let’s examine some of it

From your post:

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.

Like most things the internet is not free, one pays for access. Then we see that supposedly, this net neutrality or this freedom and openness have “driven economic innovation”. This is simply wrong. The force driving innovation is profit motive, the willingness to provide a good or service which comes from real world economic concerns. Do any of us go to work for “guiding principles” alone? What suppresses innovation is government intrusion. Further, a consumer’s right to this or that object is a false premise, period. The “network's only job” is to satisfy his customer. But the other part of this false choice presented here, the ‘choosing’, is the role of the customer. There is a lot of false information here which leads one to be suspicious as to the author’s intent. Generally, names such as “Net Neutrality” and “Employee Free Choice Act” deserve initial skepticism and further detailed examination.

Truth is, companies develop better, faster, and more reliable technology so they can charge a premium for it (profit). This encourages others to compete and then to develop even better stuff. In the process of competition older technologies become cheaper and cheaper (remember the cost of early Plasma flat screens?)

But here is something that should make us suspicious.

” 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.

And then this:

” 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.

So the order of events according to this narrative is:
1. The free ‘neutral’ internet
2. FCC decides to regulate
3. Congress decides to regulate the regulations

Wouldn’t it just have been simpler to have left the internet alone? Isn’t this a case of legislative creep?

It’s really important to determine the business dynamics here. This piece attempts to demonize internet suppliers but we must ask who is doing the demonizing here? Who would benefit by legislatively hog tying internet suppliers? Well, their consumers like Google and Facebook and others who’s potential downloads or uploads contain massive amounts of data requiring broader more expensive bandwidth. This net neutrality allows those such as Google to use more resources than others thereby slowing the internet. Wouldn’t it be fairer if internet suppliers simply offered different speeds at different prices allowing all a choice? That in a nutshell is all the suppliers want to do. The extra money they make on the high speed they can plow back into innovation for ever increasing bandwidth. When the higher speed comes online what used to be the highest is effectively reduced in cost.

The real problem here is the FCC and its latest desire to reclassify the internet and regulate it as a phone line. Have you looked at a phone bill lately? There is much potential for statist mischief here, from increased cost to all internet users to government regulation of speech. If you are for a well maintained, technically relevant internet free from government control you should reject “Net Neutrality” and the head of the FCC Julius Genachowski’s efforts to regulate it.

JM

P.S. a lot of leftist organizations on the coalition list, dude
Join Us | Save the Internet Freepress included

Funny how you left this part out! NOT!

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.

You blamed "Obama's FCC" for "regulating" the net when it was BUSH's FCC in 2005 who set up the regulations that could block "the free flow of information." And it was Obama's congress that was "protecting Internet users from discrimination online" allowing the free flow of information which you pretended to care about.

You are simply BRAINWASHED into mindlessly attacking Obama and government without the foggiest idea of what's going on, even he is doing exactly what you pretend you want.

Originally Posted by JamesMorrison 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

 

[Intense]

That or Someone is defending the Entitlement of getting more than you pay for at someone else's expense. I get it. I pay for Road Runner Turbo. It's enhanced service and handles those big downloads quicker. Actually I need it for my Vonage lines. You offering to help me pay the bill right? It's only fair. It's my need, right. I want what I want, but why should I have to pay when you could pay for me. I've been discriminated against because I am White, and I'm not a Union Member. You need to start signing checks right now. Isn't that how the logic works? What we need now is a catchy Foundation Name l like "Kittens and Puppies United To Give Intense a Free Internet and Premium Cable TV Line UP, Because He Is White, Non-Union, and Discriminated Against By Statist Fascists Foundation". KAPUTGIAFIAPCTLUBHIWNUADABSFF for short. We need that an an off shore account, and I'm set.

 

[edthecynic]

That or Someone is defending the Entitlement of getting more than you pay for at someone else's expense. I get it. I pay for Road Runner Turbo. It's enhanced service and handles those big downloads quicker. Actually I need it for my Vonage lines. You offering to help me pay the bill right? It's only fair. It's my need, right. I want what I want, but why should I have to pay when you could pay for me. I've been discriminated against because I am White, and I'm not a Union Member. You need to start signing checks right now. Isn't that how the logic works? What we need now is a catchy Foundation Name l like "Kittens and Puppies United To Give Intense a Free Internet and Premium Cable TV Line UP, Because He Is White, Non-Union, and Discriminated Against By Statist Fascists Foundation". KAPUTGIAFIAPCTLUBHIWNUADABSFF for short. We need that an an off shore account, and I'm set.

No you don't get it!

Broadband service providers already charged different rates based on how much bandwidth you use long BEFORE Bush's FCC interfered. That is why people who subscribe to a 756Kbps DSL service pay $15 a month and people who subscribe to a 50Mbps broadband service pay close to $100 a month.

The concern is that without formal rules of the road, broadband providers could abuse their power. They might slow or block traffic from competitors to encourage consumers to use their own services more.

For example, say your broadband provider offers a streaming video service. It might be tempted to give its service priority in the network over a competitor's streaming video service. So while a competitor's video service would stutter, the broadband provider's service would fly through the network and provide superior quality.

That kind of abuse is what Bush's FCC made possible and Obama's Congress is trying to legislate against, not charging more for faster service.
Get it now?
​

​

 

[DiveCon]

That or Someone is defending the Entitlement of getting more than you pay for at someone else's expense. I get it. I pay for Road Runner Turbo. It's enhanced service and handles those big downloads quicker. Actually I need it for my Vonage lines. You offering to help me pay the bill right? It's only fair. It's my need, right. I want what I want, but why should I have to pay when you could pay for me. I've been discriminated against because I am White, and I'm not a Union Member. You need to start signing checks right now. Isn't that how the logic works? What we need now is a catchy Foundation Name l like "Kittens and Puppies United To Give Intense a Free Internet and Premium Cable TV Line UP, Because He Is White, Non-Union, and Discriminated Against By Statist Fascists Foundation". KAPUTGIAFIAPCTLUBHIWNUADABSFF for short. We need that an an off shore account, and I'm set.

No you don't get it!

Broadband service providers already charged different rates based on how much bandwidth you use long BEFORE Bush's FCC interfered. That is why people who subscribe to a 756Kbps DSL service pay $15 a month and people who subscribe to a 50Mbps broadband service pay close to $100 a month.

The concern is that without formal rules of the road, broadband providers could abuse their power. They might slow or block traffic from competitors to encourage consumers to use their own services more.

For example, say your broadband provider offers a streaming video service. It might be tempted to give its service priority in the network over a competitor's streaming video service. So while a competitor's video service would stutter, the broadband provider's service would fly through the network and provide superior quality.

That kind of abuse is what Bush's FCC made possible and Obama's Congress is trying to legislate against, not charging more for faster service.
Get it now?
​

​

AOL tried that for a while
how did that work out for them as an internet service provider?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things. Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up. Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up? Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free? So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.

I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed. And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.

So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry, but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.

 

[DiveCon]

I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things. Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up. Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up? Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free? So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.

I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed. And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.

So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry, but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.

and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things. Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up. Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up? Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free? So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.

I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed. And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.

So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry, but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.

and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access

So would I. But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home. But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision. And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters. There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.

 

[DiveCon]

I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things. Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up. Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up? Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free? So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.

I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed. And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.

So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry, but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.

and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access

So would I. But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home. But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision. And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters. There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.

exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"

 

[Foxfyre]

and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access

So would I. But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home. But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision. And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters. There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.

exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"

You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?

 

[Intense]

How about Google Competitive Bid Advertising. Look at those stock prices, and they get tax breaks.

OMG... They are monitoring us....... hide me..... Mommy!!!!!

 

[DiveCon]

So would I. But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home. But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision. And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters. There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.

exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"

You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?

thats not what it is
thats why i put it in quotation marks

 

[Foxfyre]

exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"

You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?

thats not what it is
thats why i put it in quotation marks

Then I did miss something. So what is your definition of or explanation of 'net neutrality'?

 

[edthecynic]

I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things. Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up. Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up? Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free? So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.

I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed. And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.

So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry, but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.

and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access

So would I. But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home. But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision. And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters. There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.

Again you are assuming that all areas have such choices!!!!!!

In my area there is only 1 broadband provider, no DSL too far from central office, no VIOS, only 1 cable provider, so it's them or dial up.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

And in a perfect world, your assertion might have validity...but remember why the CPB was established....it was to INSURE a difference in viewpoints and programming on the public awares....to curtail and avoid a monopoly. Sadly, with the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the Telecommunications Act, the CPB's effectiveness has been severely curtailed, and the results are Murdoch owning TV, radio and print mediums in the same state, of Clear Channel buying a radio station and replacing ALL local programming with "approved" programming, and then claiming that their contracting personalities are popular. The "free market" without oversight or regulation, would essentially be ruled by those who have the most gold...and we all know via history that corruption, avarice, and all the other vices fall all too easily to some who are of vast wealth and do not like to be contradicted on any level. Again, IF the MSM was "liberally biased", then why fight against the one ruling that could give voice to those who perceive themselves the victims of that bias?

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

Attempted Regulation of the internet preceded Obama.....there is already regulation of the internet to some degree. As usual, it's more about control of the potential revenue than it's about content (let's face it....without porn, the internet would be seriously revenue compromised)....IMHO, of course.

Our original discussion is about broadcast medium that is open to the public via radio and (commercial) TV.....let's stay focused on that.

 

[DiveCon]

and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access

So would I. But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home. But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision. And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters. There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.

Again you are assuming that all areas have such choices!!!!!!

In my area there is only 1 broadband provider, no DSL too far from central office, no VIOS, only 1 cable provider, so it's them or dial up.

if you dont like the service you get from cable, check out the service available from a Sat provider

if T-W tries to limit or restrict my access at all, i would switch to a sat service in an instant

hell, with the expansion of 3G services, you could use that as your internet access