CDZ Net Insanity

[Andylusion]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

Absolutely big money will support progressive agenda. Traditionally big money / wealthy elites, are the progressives. You progressives, for some reason I have not figured out yet, like to live in a fantasy world where progressives are anti-elite anti-wealth, pro-common-man.

False. Your rheteric is pro-common-man.... but in practice, you people are the most pro-wealthy, pro-elite ideology on the planet.

It's not shock to me that as the country has moved more and more towards progressivism, that the poor have gotten poorer, and the rich richer.

Obama rsquo s new political group open to unlimited donations - Nation - The Boston Globe

Look at this article from the Boston Globe.

Organizing for Action, self proclaimed "Progressive" group.

They proposed a meeting, quarterly, between Obama, and elite business leaders, Hollywood Studio Executives, and energy investors (how much you want to bet 'alternative energy investors'), and the target was $500,000 per.

Now tell me sparky.... you think those 'progressives' are 'the common man' you claim to be for? No, those were the elite.

Then Organizing for Action decided to have a "grass-roots" meeting they called the "Founders Summit"...... entry fee? $50,000 per person. So you and your wife, being the common people, widely proclaimed to be championed by the "Progressive", can go for only a mere $100,000. I'll meet you there myself. At a taxable income of $21K last year, I join you at the summit, in.... oh.... 3 years.... if I don't eat or live off any of the money until then.

There's your 'ideology of the common folk' right there buddy. Yes, progressive have many supporters in big money.

 

[georgephillip]

"except for legitimate network purposes" which you are going to give to the government to define. Oh sorry, your website is 'spam', and we have to block it

So you would rather for-profit corporations define what qualifies as "legitimate network purposes" in order to side step well established common carrier traditions that trace back over centuries; thereby, allowing themselves "to interfere with speech that makes them look bad, block applications that compete with their own, or increase profit by forcing developers to pay more to avoid having their data blocked or slowed down."
What Is Net Neutrality American Civil Liberties Union

 

[georgephillip]

Do you ever listen to PBS radio? Try it some time. You'll hear very little conservatism and a shitload of liberalism...all financed by our government. Is that equitable and balanced? Shouldn't conservatives be asking for some of their tax money back?

 

[georgephillip]

There is nothing about a conservative broadcast that precludes liberals from responding with a countering liberal broadcast

Why pay double? All broadcasters use the public's airwaves. If a conservative or liberal claims Sandra Fluke is a slut or Rush Limbaugh is a gutless draft dodger on the air, there's no reason why the accused should have to buy time to refute the claim. The only reason right wing talk radio has the influence it does is because its mouthpieces aren't capable of defending their tripe in real time.

 

[georgephillip]

Never heard of it. Can't imagine why

I can.
"The Pacifica Foundation (now known as Pacifica Foundation Radio) was born in the late 1940's out of the (now nearly forgotten) peace movement surrounding World War Two. Lewis Hill, a conscientious objector and Washington, D.C. newsman, was fired from his mainstream reporting job when he refused to misrepresent the facts.

"This was a time when the idea of a listener-sponsored radio station was a new one which had never been implemented.

"Many people doubted the viability of a broadcast model which didn't rely on some kind of corporate or government funding.

"But the idea was too compelling for Hill and others who agreed with him. Pacifica was born and in 1949 KPFA went on the air from Berkeley, California.

"KPFK, in Los Angeles, was the second of what would eventually become five Pacifica Stations to go on the air. It was 1959 and Terry Drinkwater was the first General Manager. Blessed with an enormous transmitter in a prime location, KPFK is the most powerful of the Pacifica stations and indeed is the most powerful public radio station in the Western United States."

Pacifica Foundation Radio

 

[georgephillip]

But the same could be said of the left-wing too. Have you listened to Olberman? That's an equitable and balanced manor?

You do realize that everyone always presents the 'facts' from their own personal perspective, and that perspective, inherently has a bias. That's unavoidable.

Agreed. The best way for citizens to recognize those natural biases on left and right is to require both sides to engage in honest debate with each other and with radicals beyond the corporate sphere.

"The mass media blindly support the ideology of corporate capitalism. They laud and promote the myth of American democracy—even as we are stripped of civil liberties and money replaces the vote. They pay deference to the leaders on Wall Street and in Washington, no matter how perfidious their crimes. They slavishly venerate the military and law enforcement in the name of patriotism.

"They select the specialists and experts, almost always drawn from the centers of power, to interpret reality and explain policy. They usually rely on press releases, written by corporations, for their news. And they fill most of their news holes with celebrity gossip, lifestyle stories, sports and trivia.

"The role of the mass media is to entertain or to parrot official propaganda to the masses. The corporations, which own the press, hire journalists willing to be courtiers to the elites, and they promote them as celebrities. These journalistic courtiers, who can earn millions of dollars, are invited into the inner circles of power. They are, as John Ralston Saulwrites, hedonists of power."
Chris Hedges The Myth of the Free Press - Chris Hedges -Truthdig

 

[jasonnfree]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

Absolutely big money will support progressive agenda. Traditionally big money / wealthy elites, are the progressives. You progressives, for some reason I have not figured out yet, like to live in a fantasy world where progressives are anti-elite anti-wealth, pro-common-man.

False. Your rheteric is pro-common-man.... but in practice, you people are the most pro-wealthy, pro-elite ideology on the planet.

It's not shock to me that as the country has moved more and more towards progressivism, that the poor have gotten poorer, and the rich richer.

Obama rsquo s new political group open to unlimited donations - Nation - The Boston Globe

Look at this article from the Boston Globe.

Organizing for Action, self proclaimed "Progressive" group.

They proposed a meeting, quarterly, between Obama, and elite business leaders, Hollywood Studio Executives, and energy investors (how much you want to bet 'alternative energy investors'), and the target was $500,000 per.

Now tell me sparky.... you think those 'progressives' are 'the common man' you claim to be for? No, those were the elite.

Then Organizing for Action decided to have a "grass-roots" meeting they called the "Founders Summit"...... entry fee? $50,000 per person. So you and your wife, being the common people, widely proclaimed to be championed by the "Progressive", can go for only a mere $100,000. I'll meet you there myself. At a taxable income of $21K last year, I join you at the summit, in.... oh.... 3 years.... if I don't eat or live off any of the money until then.

There's your 'ideology of the common folk' right there buddy. Yes, progressive have many supporters in big money.

Depends on who you consider elite. I would think you couldn't get more elite than multi billionaires like the Kochs and the Walmart heirs, for example. As far as corporations, they are now considered citizens. Can't get much further right than that considering that our government and constitution was originated at least in part by opposition to an international corporation interfering in the economics of this country.

 

[jasonnfree]

The Fairness Doctrine? You mean that ridiculous 'equal time' rule whereby a conservative view has to be countered with a liberal view? That's nothing but suppression of free speech

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right? Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner? Scumbag Rush Limbaugh slanders "slut" and "prostitute" Sandra Fluke for publicly supporting insurance coverage for contraceptives, yet she isn't entitled to equal time on his show to debate the charges? Why do you sissy cons always bow low before gutless rich bitches, still swallowing that load about the divine right of kings?

I'm replying only to the letters in bold. The rest of your post is bullshit.

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right?
Wrong! Free speech is currently available to both sides....unless in a House controlled by Nancy Pelosi types who think Republicans should have no say in writing laws.

When broadcasting to the nation of voters, there is no obligation whatsoever for conservatives to notify liberals ahead of time and offer free equal time immediately following the broadcast. This absence of such a stupid requirement applies to liberals as well.


Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner?
There is nothing about a conservative broadcast that precludes liberals from responding with a countering liberal broadcast.

What you liberals want is for conservatives to pay for the megaphone and hand it to you after their message is out. Buy your own megaphone. Come up with some magnetic, sensible talk show hosts that support the Constitution and separation of powers rather than secretive undermining of our capitalist system.

Do you ever listen to PBS radio? Try it some time. You'll hear very little conservatism and a shitload of liberalism...all financed by our government. Is that equitable and balanced? Shouldn't conservatives be asking for some of their tax money back?

Maybe you should listen to PBS and get both sides. I pay to get PBS, I get Rush for free.

 

[jasonnfree]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

If you can't figure that out from what I put in bold letters within my quote of you, we will have difficulty communicating hereafter.

Here are the sentences:

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media?

If you say there's no liberal media, then ask why there is no conservative media, you imply that you think there is no media. Do you follow that?

...and your implication that big money will not support the liberal agenda is hogwash. Just say, "George Soros" or look at Obama's list of Hollywood Allstars supporters. The left is replete with big monied supporters.

Why don't we hear more about Trans Pacific Partnership? If there were a liberal media they might address this as PBS does. Do you really think Soros is as involved in politics as the Kochs for example? I don't.

 

[Andylusion]

"except for legitimate network purposes" which you are going to give to the government to define. Oh sorry, your website is 'spam', and we have to block it

So you would rather for-profit corporations define what qualifies as "legitimate network purposes" in order to side step well established common carrier traditions that trace back over centuries; thereby, allowing themselves "to interfere with speech that makes them look bad, block applications that compete with their own, or increase profit by forcing developers to pay more to avoid having their data blocked or slowed down."
What Is Net Neutrality American Civil Liberties Union

"Them" as if all companies everywhere, are a uniform "them". Remember many of these companies that you broadbrush as "them", are all in competition with each other. If one company were to actually do what you claim, there would be hundreds of others to counter it.

Further, your mythic claims that they could increase their profits by forcing devs to pay more to avoid having their data blocked.... that's a red herring, and I already proved that. Bit Torrent counter sued, and won, without any Net Neutrality law.

No one is having their data 'blocked or slowed'. That's just made up leftist BS.

There has been tons of negative publicity since Comcast had their fight with Bit Torrent. Since the time that the Net Neutrality laws have been struck down..... ANd they have..... How much has Comcast "interfered with speech that makes them look bad"?

Because in theory, they could. Certainly from a technology standpoint, they most certainly could.

And yet... have they?

See, here's the difference..... when you look at freedom of speech curtailed in other countries, of which there are numerous examples..... how many have been curtailed by "corporations"?

How many have been by "Government"? What would you say? 95% / 5% in favor of government? Maybe even more? I can only, off hand, think of a single instance, where a company was controlling free speech, and even then, the government was involved.

And here you are, suggesting that we give the number one, global abuser of speech rights, Government, more power to control speech, and can't figure out why the rest of us, are not as convinced.

Do you really not see the connection?

Again, the 'equal time' laws over radio, resulted in stifling speech. All the radio stations moved away from political commentary completely, left-wing or right-wing, over fear of having the FCC declare them in violation of the equal time rule.

This lesson was never lost on the politicians in government, and that's exactly why they have tried to bring it back with the rise of right-wing radio beginning with Rush.

And while you might favor that now, just remember the powers you give government today, because you trust Obama, or whatever politician you support.... might be in the hands of someone you don't trust tomorrow.

seMissourian.com International News 34 radio stations forced off air in Venezuela 08 04 09

Remember this? Freedom of speech was chipped away little by little. Was it big corporations doing it?

No, it was the government of Venezuela, and Ecuador. The stations were being 'investigated' for "improper licenses".... of course it was odd how all the improperly filed licenses hadn't been noticed for over a decade, and how all of the magically improper licenses just happen to be media outlets generally opposed to Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa. How amazing? What are the odds? Amazing coincidences.

And who gave government all this power over radio and broadcast TV? It was people just like you, in the decades past in Venezuela, claiming that we need government to protect speech from the corporations, over the media.

And now it is exactly government, who is curtailing speech over the media, using the powers that you right here, right now, claim they should have.

So to answer your question.... YES absolutely! I trust the corporations, who I can choose to avoid or replace, over government who have I have no ability to avoid or replace whatsoever. A corporation can't really do jack to me. Government can. If Time Warner terminates my internet access, I can purchase other access. If Government tells me I can't have internet access, I'm screwed.

Yes, I want government to have LESS control over my life. Time Warner will provide the service I want, or they won't get my money anymore. Government ALREADY takes my money whether I want them to have it or not, and provides me barely anything.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you ever listen to PBS radio? Try it some time. You'll hear very little conservatism and a shitload of liberalism...all financed by our government. Is that equitable and balanced? Shouldn't conservatives be asking for some of their tax money back?

That's misleading.


Colleges and Universities are also getting public money.
Federal State and Local Govs, are public money.
CPB and Public Broadcasting Entities, are public money.
Many of the Foundations, are funded by public money, including Ironically CPB.

Further, that's the average individual radio station.

What that's missing, is that NPR itself, is also publicly funded, and they provide the programming that goes on the individual radio station.

Grants and contributions, are generally from other government agencies.

Endowment support, is also generally funded by... government grants.

The satellite system income... of course they are not paying for those satellites to be placed in orbit, or replaced, and of course the distribution fees are coming from.... publicly funded stations.

The investment income, is in those evil Private Equity, and Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds, along with Realestate.

I have to admit, I get a sick enjoyment from finding out a favorite darling leftist project, has most of their money invested in the same evil horrible banks, hedge funds and equity funds, and off-shore investments that the left SCREAMS about in any other situation. Funny how the left screams about these evil corporations investing their money outside the country, and here's NPR with roughly 1/5 of their entire NPR Foundation money, invested outside the country. Any leftist willing to scream about evil NPR? HUH? Where's your outrage now??

Moving on.....

Other Revenue is selling stuff at the NPR store (are you serious? People actually buy NPR shirts? Nerd-tastic?), and renting out of their facilities.

So investment income, and other Revenue, are both legitimate income.
Additionally Corporate sponsorship, is just as legit, as Corporations buying ads on private radio.

So 33% of their income is legit.

What about the other 67%? Given that 50% of a radio stations income is government, only about half of the 39% is legit, and the rest is tax dollars, just shifting hands.

In other words, nearly 50% of the NPR and the Public Broadcasting is all our tax money.

Claims that it's only 10%, or even more ridiculous 1%, of the funding, are absolutely crap. And by the way... anyone who claims otherwise.... if the government funding really was so small..... then why are they freaking out every time government talks of cutting it? If my income was only 1%, or even 10% from the government... I gotta tell ya, I think I could handle it.

But when they say cutting funding could end the public broadcast system.... they are right. When 50% of your income is all tax dollars, and someone threatens to cut that 50% out... yeah, you are going to go broke losing that much of the income.

 

[Andylusion]

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

Absolutely big money will support progressive agenda. Traditionally big money / wealthy elites, are the progressives. You progressives, for some reason I have not figured out yet, like to live in a fantasy world where progressives are anti-elite anti-wealth, pro-common-man.

False. Your rheteric is pro-common-man.... but in practice, you people are the most pro-wealthy, pro-elite ideology on the planet.

It's not shock to me that as the country has moved more and more towards progressivism, that the poor have gotten poorer, and the rich richer.

Obama rsquo s new political group open to unlimited donations - Nation - The Boston Globe

Look at this article from the Boston Globe.

Organizing for Action, self proclaimed "Progressive" group.

They proposed a meeting, quarterly, between Obama, and elite business leaders, Hollywood Studio Executives, and energy investors (how much you want to bet 'alternative energy investors'), and the target was $500,000 per.

Now tell me sparky.... you think those 'progressives' are 'the common man' you claim to be for? No, those were the elite.

Then Organizing for Action decided to have a "grass-roots" meeting they called the "Founders Summit"...... entry fee? $50,000 per person. So you and your wife, being the common people, widely proclaimed to be championed by the "Progressive", can go for only a mere $100,000. I'll meet you there myself. At a taxable income of $21K last year, I join you at the summit, in.... oh.... 3 years.... if I don't eat or live off any of the money until then.

There's your 'ideology of the common folk' right there buddy. Yes, progressive have many supporters in big money.

Depends on who you consider elite. I would think you couldn't get more elite than multi billionaires like the Kochs and the Walmart heirs, for example. As far as corporations, they are now considered citizens. Can't get much further right than that considering that our government and constitution was originated at least in part by opposition to an international corporation interfering in the economics of this country.

So let me get this straight. A progressive group, invites people to pay $500,000 to meet with the president 4 times a year, and in your world......... that's not elite? Because they are not Koch or Walmart...... that alone is your standard of elitist. They could have raise $10 Million per visit with the president, and you'd never consider them elite because they are not Koch or Walmart.

You seem to be discrediting yourself.

Corporations being 'citizens' has nothing at all to do with this conversation. Is this a red herring? You claimed that no corporation would fund a progressive ideological movement. I pointed out with clear evidence, they very often do. Your response was effectively, they are not elite unless they are Koch and Walmart, and Corporations are citizens.

Fail? You want to try again, hopefully with an answer bordering on logical?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Myself I am not so "worried" about what the govt. will do to the internet, but what corporations will do.
In the 1980's Microsoft tried unsuccessfully in conjunction with other companies to make the internet something that could be owned. They wanted consumers to have to pay a "toll" to Microsoft and browser makers to access the internet.
They did not succeed. But they have not given up. On the Xbox1, they have resurrected this idea in the form of a "pay wall". If you have an XB1, you cannot access the internet in anyway, including viewing Netflix without having a Microsoft "live account". In fact, a toll.
I believe, as computer technology continues to drift towards devices and away from traditional PC's...that not only will content be controlled, but there will be a "pay per use" system in place.
Some may say we have that now with ISPs, you have to pay to have internet access.
No, you are paying access to the infrastructure that company has built. Not the internet itself. I am saying, I believe that there will be fees above infrastructure costs like the Microsoft paywall on XB1.
Annnd, I believe these devices will control and filter what you see and do not see.
For instance, your iPhone will simply not access Piratebay, Isohunt Kickass etc.

 

[georgephillip]

Grants and contributions, are generally from other government agencies.

Endowment support, is also generally funded by... government grants.

Can you prove those claims?

 

[georgephillip]

So 33% of their income is legit.

What do you mean by "legit?"
53% of Public Radio revenue comes from corporations and individuals. Are you saying 20% of those funds are illegitimate?

 

[Moonglow]

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

Absolutely big money will support progressive agenda. Traditionally big money / wealthy elites, are the progressives. You progressives, for some reason I have not figured out yet, like to live in a fantasy world where progressives are anti-elite anti-wealth, pro-common-man.

False. Your rheteric is pro-common-man.... but in practice, you people are the most pro-wealthy, pro-elite ideology on the planet.

It's not shock to me that as the country has moved more and more towards progressivism, that the poor have gotten poorer, and the rich richer.

Obama rsquo s new political group open to unlimited donations - Nation - The Boston Globe

Look at this article from the Boston Globe.

Organizing for Action, self proclaimed "Progressive" group.

They proposed a meeting, quarterly, between Obama, and elite business leaders, Hollywood Studio Executives, and energy investors (how much you want to bet 'alternative energy investors'), and the target was $500,000 per.

Now tell me sparky.... you think those 'progressives' are 'the common man' you claim to be for? No, those were the elite.

Then Organizing for Action decided to have a "grass-roots" meeting they called the "Founders Summit"...... entry fee? $50,000 per person. So you and your wife, being the common people, widely proclaimed to be championed by the "Progressive", can go for only a mere $100,000. I'll meet you there myself. At a taxable income of $21K last year, I join you at the summit, in.... oh.... 3 years.... if I don't eat or live off any of the money until then.

There's your 'ideology of the common folk' right there buddy. Yes, progressive have many supporters in big money.

Depends on who you consider elite. I would think you couldn't get more elite than multi billionaires like the Kochs and the Walmart heirs, for example. As far as corporations, they are now considered citizens. Can't get much further right than that considering that our government and constitution was originated at least in part by opposition to an international corporation interfering in the economics of this country.

So let me get this straight. A progressive group, invites people to pay $500,000 to meet with the president 4 times a year, and in your world......... that's not elite? Because they are not Koch or Walmart...... that alone is your standard of elitist. They could have raise $10 Million per visit with the president, and you'd never consider them elite because they are not Koch or Walmart.

You seem to be discrediting yourself.

Corporations being 'citizens' has nothing at all to do with this conversation. Is this a red herring? You claimed that no corporation would fund a progressive ideological movement. I pointed out with clear evidence, they very often do. Your response was effectively, they are not elite unless they are Koch and Walmart, and Corporations are citizens.

Fail? You want to try again, hopefully with an answer bordering on logical?

I have a hard time thinking of the Waltons as elite, since I've known the family for 30 years...

 

[Andylusion]

Myself I am not so "worried" about what the govt. will do to the internet, but what corporations will do.
In the 1980's Microsoft tried unsuccessfully in conjunction with other companies to make the internet something that could be owned. They wanted consumers to have to pay a "toll" to Microsoft and browser makers to access the internet.
They did not succeed. But they have not given up. On the Xbox1, they have resurrected this idea in the form of a "pay wall". If you have an XB1, you cannot access the internet in anyway, including viewing Netflix without having a Microsoft "live account". In fact, a toll.
I believe, as computer technology continues to drift towards devices and away from traditional PC's...that not only will content be controlled, but there will be a "pay per use" system in place.
Some may say we have that now with ISPs, you have to pay to have internet access.
No, you are paying access to the infrastructure that company has built. Not the internet itself. I am saying, I believe that there will be fees above infrastructure costs like the Microsoft paywall on XB1.
Annnd, I believe these devices will control and filter what you see and do not see.
For instance, your iPhone will simply not access Piratebay, Isohunt Kickass etc.

The internet *IS* owned. There is not a single part of the internet anywhere, that is not "owned" by someone. Every section, every router, every T1 line, every fiber line, is owned by someone somewhere.

Kickass, piratebay, isohunt, are all methods for downloading media you haven't paid for.

If there was 'carhunt', which allowed me to illegally drive your car, would you want that website blocked? Yes.

The law is the law. Both are breaking the law. Any argument that uses "A company might prevent people from breaking the law", is a failed argument. And by the way, if government had complete control over the internet, there is a very high chance they would block all those sites too, except not just on your Iphone, but everything.

As far as XBox Live.... if that's the best example you can come up with, then you have convinced me there's nothing to be worried about.

XBox live is a service that microsoft provides. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they provide *ANY* XBox Live service free. The fact you have a pay for the premium service, is not surprising, or unreasonable.

I suppose in your world, you would expect Microsoft to provide all services free? How does that make sense? And in a world governed by that idea, would there be many services?

If the terms and conditions of the Xbox are so bad.... buy something else. All the other subscription services have a price too.

Load Linux on your Xbox, and access everything. Better yet, just buy a computer if you want to access the internet. Game consoles are generally...... (gasp) for playing games. Shocking I know.

 

[Andylusion]

So 33% of their income is legit.

What do you mean by "legit?"
53% of Public Radio revenue comes from corporations and individuals. Are you saying 20% of those funds are illegitimate?

Good question.

I'm right-wing as you can get.

In my world view, legitimate income, is profit you create by virtue of the product or services you provide, that results in the voluntary exchange of wealth.

I build a computer in my home. I sell the computer. That computer has value to the public, which results in them giving me money in an amount greater than the cost of building the computer. That is a legitimate income.

Alternatively, I build a windmill. The value of the windmill is lower than the cost of building it. However, since I get a grant, and tax breaks, and such from the government, which confiscates money from tax payers, and gives it to me, I end up with a profit.

That income is not legitimate. It's the result of coercion of people to give me (through the government tax/grant system) their money without their consent, not the voluntary exchange for goods and services.

Now as you said, "53% of Public Radio revenue comes from corporations and individuals", and if you read my response carefully, I agreed with that. That's fine.

What about the other 47%, that's all confiscated by force, through taxation, and given to them, without the consent of the people?

I have never listened to NPR, or any PBS broadcast ever. I don't support that. Thomas Jefferson said
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

He's right. That's wrong. NPR and PBS should be cut off completely, and if there really is as much support for it as you claim, then why not let the people who support NPR and PBS, be the ones to pay for NPR and PBS.

Of course we all know the reason why such a fair and equitable system can not be employed.... if it was, there would be no NPR or PBS.

Now let me back up for just a minute.

I said that income from Corporate and Individual donors is legitimate, and it is.... It is legitimate income.

It is not coerced income. If they don't pay it, the IRS doesn't send it's shock troops and cart them off to jail.

HOWEVER.....

I'll always remember Jorge Cabrera, posing for photos with Hilliary Clinton, and it's reported that literally at this event, Jorge Cabrera offered a check, not the $20,000 donated to the DNC, to the White House staff, and was quickly told he couldn't do that. He was specifically directed to give the money to other outside groups.... groups supportive of the leftist agenda.

I remember when this came out in 1995, and thinking.... there it is... this is how things work. This is why campaign fiance reform will never work. Of someone wants a favor, or political support, or government grants for a project, even if they can't donate directly to the individual, they'll simply donate to people sympathetic to that individual.

So look at the Corporate donor list, as listed on the page you got that graphic from. Look at the Corporate donors there. Notice anything interesting?

In 2008, and 2009, one of the top donors was..... General Motors. How interesting. A company on the verge of bankruptcy, attempting to get a massive bailout..... somehow has enough money to be the top donors to public radio, who is ideologically aligned with the administration that just won the presidency.

Notice also that included in "Corporate Sponsors" is PBS.... so get this.... Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (CPB), is giving money to Public Broadcasting Service, which gives money to NPR, and you call that non-public non-tax money?

Notice also all the Universities. All these Universities, which are also given millions of tax dollars every year. I'm sure they have no incentive at all to keep the money flowing.

How about the Smithsonian Channel? Funded by the the Smithsonian Instituted, funded by the government?

The United States Army, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.... top donator. I wonder where those dollars came from?

Notice all the banks. Remember those banks you hate so much? They caused every bad thing that's ever happened, you know those people? Top donators to NPR, Charles Schwab, Progressive Ins, Prudential, Wells Fargo, VISA, MasterCard, Citibank, Bank of America.

Again, in 2009, all these banks looking for bailouts, in the middle of an economic crash, somehow manage to send millions of dollars to NPR.

TIAA-CREF, Teacher retirement funds.... Now that's a wise investment with my retirement. Give it to Public Radio. Oh wait... it actually is, because it gives my retirement fund preference in government.

And of course those left-wing projects that get tons of money from government. Earth Share. One Laptop One Child.

So even a significant chunk of the "Corporate Sponsors", are just other government funded entities donating to each other, and some are corporations with invested interest in gaining favor with the Federal Government.

That leads one to wonder, how much of the individual donations are also politically motivated....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Myself I am not so "worried" about what the govt. will do to the internet, but what corporations will do.
In the 1980's Microsoft tried unsuccessfully in conjunction with other companies to make the internet something that could be owned. They wanted consumers to have to pay a "toll" to Microsoft and browser makers to access the internet.
They did not succeed. But they have not given up. On the Xbox1, they have resurrected this idea in the form of a "pay wall". If you have an XB1, you cannot access the internet in anyway, including viewing Netflix without having a Microsoft "live account". In fact, a toll.
I believe, as computer technology continues to drift towards devices and away from traditional PC's...that not only will content be controlled, but there will be a "pay per use" system in place.
Some may say we have that now with ISPs, you have to pay to have internet access.
No, you are paying access to the infrastructure that company has built. Not the internet itself. I am saying, I believe that there will be fees above infrastructure costs like the Microsoft paywall on XB1.
Annnd, I believe these devices will control and filter what you see and do not see.
For instance, your iPhone will simply not access Piratebay, Isohunt Kickass etc.

The internet *IS* owned. There is not a single part of the internet anywhere, that is not "owned" by someone. Every section, every router, every T1 line, every fiber line, is owned by someone somewhere.

Kickass, piratebay, isohunt, are all methods for downloading media you haven't paid for.

If there was 'carhunt', which allowed me to illegally drive your car, would you want that website blocked? Yes.

The law is the law. Both are breaking the law. Any argument that uses "A company might prevent people from breaking the law", is a failed argument. And by the way, if government had complete control over the internet, there is a very high chance they would block all those sites too, except not just on your Iphone, but everything.

As far as XBox Live.... if that's the best example you can come up with, then you have convinced me there's nothing to be worried about.

XBox live is a service that microsoft provides. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they provide *ANY* XBox Live service free. The fact you have a pay for the premium service, is not surprising, or unreasonable.

I suppose in your world, you would expect Microsoft to provide all services free? How does that make sense? And in a world governed by that idea, would there be many services?

If the terms and conditions of the Xbox are so bad.... buy something else. All the other subscription services have a price too.

Load Linux on your Xbox, and access everything. Better yet, just buy a computer if you want to access the internet. Game consoles are generally...... (gasp) for playing games. Shocking I know.

Well gee...so we have established you like to to put words in other peoples mouths. Got it.
And you like to make broad assumptions on what someone says...got it.
And finally you make claims on something you apparently don't know anything about.
Got that too.

So lets break it down.
XBox...prior to XB1 you only had to have a live account to play video games online.
You can watch Netflix and all of the other dozens of media apps just fine without the live account.
That is not a "premium service". It cost Microsoft exactly $.0 to allow the device to access the internet for non-gaming apps.
"Game consoles are generally for playing games" - where have you been?
Game consoles are very-very quickly moving to media/entertainment devices. Games are actually being use less than the media capability for most people. In other words they spend more time watching media than playing games today. That's a fact.
"A company might not allow people to break the law"...I was using PirateBay ect...wait for it...as an EXAMPLE of things that will be filtered. If they can block those, they can block anything.
"All of the other subscription services have a price too". No they don't.
XBox is the only device on the market, currently, that has a pay wall.
All other devices do not require a subscription to access internet based apps. None.
And I don't have an XB1, and I will not be buying one for this reason.

 

[Andylusion]

Myself I am not so "worried" about what the govt. will do to the internet, but what corporations will do.
In the 1980's Microsoft tried unsuccessfully in conjunction with other companies to make the internet something that could be owned. They wanted consumers to have to pay a "toll" to Microsoft and browser makers to access the internet.
They did not succeed. But they have not given up. On the Xbox1, they have resurrected this idea in the form of a "pay wall". If you have an XB1, you cannot access the internet in anyway, including viewing Netflix without having a Microsoft "live account". In fact, a toll.
I believe, as computer technology continues to drift towards devices and away from traditional PC's...that not only will content be controlled, but there will be a "pay per use" system in place.
Some may say we have that now with ISPs, you have to pay to have internet access.
No, you are paying access to the infrastructure that company has built. Not the internet itself. I am saying, I believe that there will be fees above infrastructure costs like the Microsoft paywall on XB1.
Annnd, I believe these devices will control and filter what you see and do not see.
For instance, your iPhone will simply not access Piratebay, Isohunt Kickass etc.

The internet *IS* owned. There is not a single part of the internet anywhere, that is not "owned" by someone. Every section, every router, every T1 line, every fiber line, is owned by someone somewhere.

Kickass, piratebay, isohunt, are all methods for downloading media you haven't paid for.

If there was 'carhunt', which allowed me to illegally drive your car, would you want that website blocked? Yes.

The law is the law. Both are breaking the law. Any argument that uses "A company might prevent people from breaking the law", is a failed argument. And by the way, if government had complete control over the internet, there is a very high chance they would block all those sites too, except not just on your Iphone, but everything.

As far as XBox Live.... if that's the best example you can come up with, then you have convinced me there's nothing to be worried about.

XBox live is a service that microsoft provides. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they provide *ANY* XBox Live service free. The fact you have a pay for the premium service, is not surprising, or unreasonable.

I suppose in your world, you would expect Microsoft to provide all services free? How does that make sense? And in a world governed by that idea, would there be many services?

If the terms and conditions of the Xbox are so bad.... buy something else. All the other subscription services have a price too.

Load Linux on your Xbox, and access everything. Better yet, just buy a computer if you want to access the internet. Game consoles are generally...... (gasp) for playing games. Shocking I know.

Well gee...so we have established you like to to put words in other peoples mouths. Got it.
And you like to make broad assumptions on what someone says...got it.
And finally you make claims on something you apparently don't know anything about.
Got that too.

So lets break it down.
XBox...prior to XB1 you only had to have a live account to play video games online.
You can watch Netflix and all of the other dozens of media apps just fine without the live account.
That is not a "premium service". It cost Microsoft exactly $.0 to allow the device to access the internet for non-gaming apps.
"Game consoles are generally for playing games" - where have you been?
Game consoles are very-very quickly moving to media/entertainment devices. Games are actually being use less than the media capability for most people. In other words they spend more time watching media than playing games today. That's a fact.
"A company might not allow people to break the law"...I was using PirateBay ect...wait for it...as an EXAMPLE of things that will be filtered. If they can block those, they can block anything.
"All of the other subscription services have a price too". No they don't.
XBox is the only device on the market, currently, that has a pay wall.
All other devices do not require a subscription to access internet based apps. None.
And I don't have an XB1, and I will not be buying one for this reason.

Please don't make stupid arguments.
"Game consoles are generally for playing games" - where have you been?

Video game console - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a console machine primarily designed for consumers to use for playing video games"

Game console Define Game console at Dictionary.com
"an electronic device for playing video games, usu. requiring connection to a television"

The primary purpose of a "Video Game Console" is to ..... play video games. Whether you like it, or agree with it or not, that is the truth, which..... DUH.... is why it's called a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE.
If this is the level of debate you wish to engage in, then I'll move on to posters who are going to discuss the topic more intelligently.

As for your claims about putting words in your mouth and such.... Remember, there are many people on this thread, and I am talking with several of them at the same time. If I accidentally mistake a claim made by someone else, and attribute it to you, that's my mistake. Not intentional. I am not trying to provoke you.

Back to XB1....

First, the argument is a bit mute, because as of June 2014, NetFlix is accessible via XBox Live Free.

However, let's discuss the counter-factual... Even there, Net Neutrality is completely irrelevant to this specific discussion of XB1, because...... Microsoft isn't blocking the transmission of Netflix. Microsoft is not the common carrier.

We know they are not "blocking" anything, because if you take an XBox, and install Linux on it, it plays Netflix just fine.

Microsoft, has created the system that runs on XBox One, to refuse Netflix. It's the product itself, not the internet connectivity, or the ISP, or any of the cross connections. They are not blocking the data, or slowing it. The system itself refused it.

Again there are videos on Youtube right now that show Linux loaded onto Xboxs and they have full access. So net neutrality would have zero effect on this.

If you have a problem with the XBox, then get a PS4, or Wii. When customers vote with their dollars, to move to a different console, the changes you want will happen without any government control over the internet.