Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[edthecynic]

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

Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.

 

[DiveCon]

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

Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider

 

[edthecynic]

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

Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.

 

[DiveCon]

Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.

the point is you CAN do that
thats why they wont do what all you whiny pussies for "net neutrality" fear

 

[edthecynic]

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.

the point is you CAN do that
thats why they wont do what all you whiny pussies for "net neutrality" fear

They won't do it because the GOP shills are in the pockets of the lobbyists.

 

[DiveCon]

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.

the point is you CAN do that
thats why they wont do what all you whiny pussies for "net neutrality" fear

They won't do it because the GOP shills are in the pockets of the lobbyists.

in this case, the lobbyists are RIGHT
net neutrality is bullshit

 

[DiveCon]

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'?

look it up and read what they are pushing for
its not neutrality, its just more government regulation on something that doesnt need it

 

[JamesMorrison]

Funny how you left this part out! NOT!

Actually what was left out was your argument. This then allowed me to assume that it (your argument) totally agreed with the article. Further, if you felt you had a specific argument to make you might have done that either pre or post article. You chose neither. So you attempt to label any response to your post as ignoring or leaving out an important part of you argument is fallacious.

Next, we are directed to this part of your article:

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.

This statement is misleading. First these companies supply the internet to their customers and already are, by definition, "gatekeepers". Also they will not Tax (only government taxes, another red flag here), they will charge for a contractually guaranteed speed of delivery.

We must note that a significant number of the providers’ coverage areas have, at least, one other competitor (I have at least three in my area). This article would have us believe there is evil afoot regarding the intent of the providers. But If, say, Verizon's VIOS decided to restrict access to a site the other competitors would use this to convince customers to use their service instead. If it decided to slow its service, ditto. Again you should look to who supports this "Net Neutrality" and see what they have to gain from it. Google has had a large role in promoting "Net Neutrality" simply because they are consumers of what the "gatekeepers" provide and by having government restrict those providers Google can lower their own costs. Google has dropped itself from the coalition list(see your FreePress site) because of the controversy. I have personally stopped using Google altogether, I now use Bing. Google has supported Obamacare (again to lower its healthcare costs by shifting it, eventually, to the government) and it has allegedly allowed Dem operatives to interfere with its Maps function to give erroneous info on directions to conservative functions. Then there is the spy thing. Wasn't Google's motto 'Do No Evil' or something?

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.

How was “Obama's congress” “allowing the free flow of information”? More legislation? What legislation would that be? Or perhaps Congress subpoenaed the head of the FCC to find out what he was doing regarding Title II reclassification? Do you have some evidence here?

Seems you are trying to change the subject here from "Net Neutrality" to "JM's just secretly attacking Obama". Then you get to knock down this strawman with your self imposed metrics which, not surprisingly, leads to the questioning of my cerebral viability. The whole purpose of which is to discredit my argument. Problem with this attempt is that said argument, in my former post, was, specifically, that this whole controversy would be moot if we simply eliminated any government role in the internet itself at all. No need for Obama, ‘his’ Congress, or Bush to even enter into the calculation. Like the economic forces I discussed above RE internet providers, a free market system unencumbered by government pretty much regulates itself. There is another argument you could make for some government help but since you have not so alerted us I won’t address it here.

Actually I think we might want the same thing here; fast internet access to any site we so choose at a reasonable price. I, however, just can't see government doing it. When government passes regulations it puts restrictions on business most of the time that favors some over others. This hinders a customer's greatest friend: Competition.

JM

P.S. In regard to the present FCC's attempt to regulate the internet this is referred to as Title II Reclassification. Here is an admittedly conservative site that has been following "Net Neutrality" for a number of years. The articles are listed from latest to earliest.
Tech At Night | RedState
You might note that we conservatives favor Henry Waxman's bill on this, but note the reason why.

 

[edthecynic]

Funny how you left this part out! NOT!

Actually what was left out was your argument. This then allowed me to assume that it (your argument) totally agreed with the article. Further, if you felt you had a specific argument to make you might have done that either pre or post article. You chose neither. So you attempt to label any response to your post as ignoring or leaving out an important part of you argument is fallacious.

Next, we are directed to this part of your article:

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.

This statement is misleading. First these companies supply the internet to their customers and already are, by definition, "gatekeepers". Also they will not Tax (only government taxes, another red flag here), they will charge for a contractually guaranteed speed of delivery.

We must note that a significant number of the providers’ coverage areas have, at least, one other competitor (I have at least three in my area). This article would have us believe there is evil afoot regarding the intent of the providers. But If, say, Verizon's VIOS decided to restrict access to a site the other competitors would use this to convince customers to use their service instead. If it decided to slow its service, ditto. Again you should look to who supports this "Net Neutrality" and see what they have to gain from it. Google has had a large role in promoting "Net Neutrality" simply because they are consumers of what the "gatekeepers" provide and by having government restrict those providers Google can lower their own costs. Google has dropped itself from the coalition list(see your FreePress site) because of the controversy. I have personally stopped using Google altogether, I now use Bing. Google has supported Obamacare (again to lower its healthcare costs by shifting it, eventually, to the government) and it has allegedly allowed Dem operatives to interfere with its Maps function to give erroneous info on directions to conservative functions. Then there is the spy thing. Wasn't Google's motto 'Do No Evil' or something?

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.

How was “Obama's congress” “allowing the free flow of information”? More legislation? What legislation would that be? Or perhaps Congress subpoenaed the head of the FCC to find out what he was doing regarding Title II reclassification? Do you have some evidence here?

Seems you are trying to change the subject here from "Net Neutrality" to "JM's just secretly attacking Obama". Then you get to knock down this strawman with your self imposed metrics which, not surprisingly, leads to the questioning of my cerebral viability. The whole purpose of which is to discredit my argument. Problem with this attempt is that said argument, in my former post, was, specifically, that this whole controversy would be moot if we simply eliminated any government role in the internet itself at all. No need for Obama, ‘his’ Congress, or Bush to even enter into the calculation. Like the economic forces I discussed above RE internet providers, a free market system unencumbered by government pretty much regulates itself. There is another argument you could make for some government help but since you have not so alerted us I won’t address it here.

Actually I think we might want the same thing here; fast internet access to any site we so choose at a reasonable price. I, however, just can't see government doing it. When government passes regulations it puts restrictions on business most of the time that favors some over others. This hinders a customer's greatest friend: Competition.

JM

P.S. In regard to the present FCC's attempt to regulate the internet this is referred to as Title II Reclassification. Here is an admittedly conservative site that has been following "Net Neutrality" for a number of years. The articles are listed from latest to earliest.
Tech At Night | RedState
You might note that we conservatives favor Henry Waxman's bill on this, but note the reason why.

Tax, charge, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

After denying that you are really out to attack Obama for anything and everything, you admit you awitrched to Bing because google dared to support health care reform that you call "Obamacare." How dare anyone call you blindly anti-Obama.

And speaking of willful blindness, I loved how you played dumb asking "What legislation would that be? about the legislation in Obama's Congress to protect the public from Bush's 2005 FCC legislation when I posted it for you to IGNORE.
Here it is again for you to ignore:

In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458).

Also, if you notice it is from Edward Markey not Henry Waxman.
Here is what the bill says:

‘‘SEC. 12. INTERNET FREEDOM.

‘‘(b) DUTIES OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PRO-
15
VIDERS.—With respect to any Internet access service of-
16
fered to the public, each Internet access service provider
17
shall have the duty to—
18
‘‘(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate
19
against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person
20
to use an Internet access service to access, use,
21
send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, ap-
22
plication, or service through the Internet;
23
‘‘(2) not impose a charge on any Internet con-
24
tent, service, or application provider to enable any
25

7

lawful Internet content, application, or service to be
1
offered, provided, or used through the provider’s
2
service, beyond the end user charges associated with
3
providing the service to such provider;
4
‘‘(3) not prevent or obstruct a user from at-
5
taching any lawful device to or utilizing any such de-
6
vice in conjunction with such service, provided such
7
device does not harm the provider’s network

So tell me what do you have against that legislation, other than it comes from Obama's congress.

 

[Foxfyre]

Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.

You wouldn't be forced to do anything. You have total freedom to choose to live someplace that has twenty internet providers spanning the full gamut of costs and types of services.

I pay more for Homeowners insurance and auto insurance because of where I live. I do not have the option to pay a lesser amount that I could pay if I moved to a place where rates were lower. Real Estate in our area is priced less than half of what it would be in coastal California but costs twice what the same quality property would be less than 300 miles east of us. Should the government require that everybody pay the same?

I have lived in places where we couldn't get a non party telephone line without paying construction costs ourselves. I have lived in places where we had to drive 100 miles to see a medical specialist or where there wasn't a decent hardware store or dress shop within 40 miles. That's just the way the mop flops sometimes and we do what we have to do to deal with it. Or we move.

There is no right to internet service any more than it is a right to have convenient shopping or readily accessible products of any kind. Fortunately we live in a country where just about everybody who wants internet service can get it. That is an amazing thing.

 

[edthecynic]

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.

You wouldn't be forced to do anything. You have total freedom to choose to live someplace that has twenty internet providers spanning the full gamut of costs and types of services.

I pay more for Homeowners insurance and auto insurance because of where I live. I do not have the option to pay a lesser amount that I could pay if I moved to a place where rates were lower. Real Estate in our area is priced less than half of what it would be in coastal California but costs twice what the same quality property would be less than 300 miles east of us. Should the government require that everybody pay the same?

I have lived in places where we couldn't get a non party telephone line without paying construction costs ourselves. I have lived in places where we had to drive 100 miles to see a medical specialist or where there wasn't a decent hardware store or dress shop within 40 miles. That's just the way the mop flops sometimes and we do what we have to do to deal with it. Or we move.

There is no right to internet service any more than it is a right to have convenient shopping or readily accessible products of any kind. Fortunately we live in a country where just about everybody who wants internet service can get it. That is an amazing thing.

That reminds me of the argument the robber told the judge. I gave the victim the CHOICE, "your money or your life" and he freely chose to give me his money.

Again, the government does not require everyone to pay the same for internet access, you need a better Straw Man.

Read the law:

‘‘SEC. 12. INTERNET FREEDOM.

‘‘(b) DUTIES OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PRO-
15
VIDERS.—With respect to any Internet access service of-
16
fered to the public, each Internet access service provider
17
shall have the duty to—
18
‘‘(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate
19
against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person
20
to use an Internet access service to access, use,
21
send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, ap-
22
plication, or service through the Internet;
23
‘‘(2) not impose a charge on any Internet con-
24
tent, service, or application provider to enable any
25

7

lawful Internet content, application, or service to be
1
offered, provided, or used through the provider’s
2
service, beyond the end user charges associated with
3
providing the service to such provider

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh I'm sorry Ed. I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area. I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.

Oh well. Cest la vie.

Good night everybody.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh I'm sorry Ed. I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area. I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.

Oh well. Cest la vie.

Good night everybody.

No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.

 

[DiveCon]

Oh I'm sorry Ed. I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area. I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.

Oh well. Cest la vie.

Good night everybody.

No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.

but you were and are wrong
there still is competition
you just dont like the options that are available

 

[edthecynic]

Oh I'm sorry Ed. I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area. I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.

Oh well. Cest la vie.

Good night everybody.

No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.

but you were and are wrong
there still is competition
you just dont like the options that are available

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.

 

[DiveCon]

No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.

but you were and are wrong
there still is competition
you just dont like the options that are available

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.

the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand

 

[Foxfyre]

but you were and are wrong
there still is competition
you just dont like the options that are available

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.

the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand

And given human ingenuity coupled with a free market, when what is available is no longer suitable, somebody will invariably devise something better.

 

[edthecynic]

but you were and are wrong
there still is competition
you just dont like the options that are available

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.

the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand

As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.

 

[daveman]

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.

the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand

As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.

There is no right to broadband. Are you wanting the government to act like there is?

 

[DiveCon]

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.

the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand

As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.

again, i dont give a shit if sat service drops in the rain, its not like that happens all the time either
i have dish net for tv service, because they offer a better package than the local cable does
but if T/W started filtering the internet i would dump them in a heartbeat and go with sat service
until someone else offered either a FIOS type service or a DSL type service
if T/W is stupid enough to risk losing their customers then they will bring about a NEED for unfiltered service, SOMEONE would step up and fill that void