Net Neutrality Fight Causing New Rifts On the Left
by Capitol ConfidentialIn the wake of reports that the Obama administration may be inching away from a national broadband policy that encompasses strong net neutrality provisions, observers of the ongoing net neutrality debate say that a major rift may be developing between big-name groups on the left.
On one side are public interest groups including the Media Access Project, Free Press, Consumers Union and the New America Foundation. On the other are several high-profile African-American groups including the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women, The National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials and the National Association of Black County Officials.
According to National Journal, the public interest groups wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski last week to express concern regarding recent statements made by an FCC official that were less than enthusiastically favorable toward net neutrality. The groups were evidently seeking Genachowski’s assurance that the FCC was not “pre-judging” the outcome of its rulemaking process with regard to the net neutrality issue.
Meanwhile, the African-American groups are expressing open support for the Broadband Opportunity Coalition, which has raised concerns about the potentially negative impact that net neutrality could have on broadband deployment and adoption. They are also objecting forcefully to tactics taken by some net neutrality advocates, which they consider to cross a line. According to the heads of the groups, some net neutrality advocates have “attacked” civil rights organizations and “sought to impugn the integrity, independence and intelligence of members of the Congressional Black Caucus and leaders of the civil rights community who have made adoption and expanded network capacity their highest priorities.”
The attacks of which the groups complain seem focused on the charge that they serve as “Astroturf” designed to further not the interests of those whom they represent but rather those of the telecoms industry. The groups conversely contend that “Many feel that these [pro-net neutrality] organizations are pushing a regulatory perspective that would regressively shift the costs of bandwidth onto middle- and low-income consumers,” and in their letter describe the net neutrality advocates in question as “elite digital organizations” who “peddle” “destructive racial rhetoric.”
Further underlining the existence of an increasingly nasty rift is that one such organization appears to be Free Press itself. The group, which one anti-net neutrality technology expert with whom Capitol Confidential spoke, described as “actually Marxist,” operates the site Save The Internet. Critics say the site regularly publishes the work of authors closely associated with the claims to which the African-American groups object.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
81 Comments
They are trying to get these rule changes through so then they can LEGALLY shut down Drudge, Foxnews, BigGov here (and all Breitbart sites), Rush, Beck, Laura et al internet websites, so that when they get the "Fairness Doctrine" through, they all won't be able to just keep doing internet broadcasts.
Whatever the Libs (Dems) "claim" they are doing something for, you can bet the Brooklyn bridge they are doing it for personal power and to shut up ANY and ALL from the other side. And they need to do this before the next elections AND before too many people realize the truth in WHY they are doing this.
They are trying to get these rule changes through so then they can LEGALLY shut down Drudge, Foxnews, BigGov here (and all Breitbart sites), Rush, Beck, Laura et al internet websites, so that when they get the "Fairness Doctrine" through, they all won't be able to just keep doing internet broadcasts.
this is the proverbial sword that cuts both ways…
It is difficult, if not neigh on impossible, to control 100% of the flow of information as long as there are competing philosophies within those who would want such control. While there is no doubt Obama and minions want very much to stifle dissent- and will agressively do so- in order to pull this off some- maybe even many- of their allies would be negatively impacted as well.
This will be far harder for Rahm Emanuel- the chief enforcer of his 'mob'- to accomplish.
And THAT's a good thing…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Partisan Media Group, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigGovt: Net Neutrality Fight Causing New Rifts On the Left: In the wake of reports that the .. http://bit.ly/1yPbXo #BigTweet [...]
Is there a point to this article other than throwing red meat to tinfoil hat pseudoconservatives? So typical of the modern right wing to spend all their energy on bashing groups of people rather than engaging in a serious discussion of the issue.
If you like internet freedom then you should favor net neutrality. Otherwise corporate fascists like AT&T, ComCast will be charging you for access to sites deemed not profitable enough to their bottom line. Bandwidth will be severely restricted for websites that are not in their pre-approved list, which would put a serious damper on the information and power that the internet brings to the masses.
Those trying to portray this as an attempt to shut down their favorite right-wing hate monger, like 'davewolfgang', are just plain ignorant.
Why are the comment submissions on this blog entry so different from the others? There is no rating system, no login, etc. Why?
Really? I use ATT, Comcast, and others RIGHT now and I have NO problems getting to any website I want to (and that's just around Houston, and the last time I traveled I never had problems with other services in any other part of the country I was). Since RIGHT NOW I can get to any website I want to – WHAT THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE? Except for the GUBMENT to take control so then it can in all it's "wisdom" decide what's what.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MB King and DRIP USA, AZ grassroots. AZ grassroots said: Net Neutrality Fight Causing New Rifts On the Left http://bit.ly/4qXUn7 #dripusa #ocra #tcot [...]
The Left (and the communists) are really good at creating names for programs and entities that reflect the exact opposite of what they are. I give you some:
The People's Republic of China :
Is it really the "Peoples"? Do they have a say? and is it really a republic or a dicatorship?
Nancy Pelosi's move to call the public option the "Competitive Option":
Is it competitive or will it KILL competition entirely?
Flexible Spending Account:
Is there anything! flexible about it? You have to pre-plan what you are going to spend for the year, and if you overshoot you lose it. If you undershoot, you lose money. And you have to keep your receipts and turn it in for a lengthy approval process. Where exactly is the flexibility?
You can find many of these oppositely named things throughout communist and leftist history.
Net Neutrality is one of them. It all sounds great, a neutral internet that is open to everyone. But like the rest of the crap coming out of the left, it is the exact opposite. It is again about control.
Net Dictatorship is more like it, they always hide behind something as simple as "Access" and who doesn't want better access to the internet? I mean how could that be bad?
The real agenda of course and as usual is redistribution. Put high speed access into places that can't afford it by taxing everyone else, and by everyone else I mean the administrations enemies, then after they are dealt with everyone else.
The real insidious part of this is that it's also the fairness doctrine for the internet, the techno-idiots can't get past this, they just see more money in their pockets, little do they realize it's just a matter of time until they get forcibly unionized up the wazoo, and finally "GM'd" but Obama won't want to do it of course, it's just their too big to fail.
Dance with these devils and you get burned, every time.
How droll and boring of the leftists ! No matter the industry, academic pursuit, medical franchise or internet information distribution or entertainment… If they can't succeed in the laissez-faire market demand (that's free markets for you gumment educated morons) they will AWAYS start whining and crying while carrying their discrimination banners in protest.
If you deem the current "products" as unfair then develop a product the public will want to listen to or subscribe to. Or you can do your ususal bawling by pleading the governent to intervene on your sorry-assed behalf. Develop a little good old fashioned American entrepreneural spirit ! OR….JUST SHUT UP ! (Borrowed that from ObamaPOS).
You are joking right. I'll come clean here. I'm an independent 'hate hyper-leftists' monger.
What's the difference between "corporate fascists like AT&T, ComCast" and 'members of the Congressional Black Caucus'? The former buys both the DNC and the RNC. The latter are just shakedown artists.
They all can go to hell. But I don't need to read the bill to know that "a national broadband policy that encompasses strong net neutrality provisions" is a win-lose-lose situation. The American people are the first losers. And the USA is the other loser.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Government, Big Government. Big Government said: Net Neutrality Fight Causing New Rifts On the Left: In the wake of reports that the Obama administration may be.. http://bit.ly/9W1xa [...]
So where is the serious discussion in your post?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by imsure: Net Neutrality Fight Causing New Rifts On the Left http://tinyurl.com/ykwaf9l…
Dude, doyou have ANY idea how REAL businesses work? Do you think all those cable and wires and hubs and lines just "APPEARED" in the ground from your house to the boxes to the hubs to the relay stations and ATT, Comcast et al. just came along and "use" them?
Those companies INVESTED in the infrastructure to BRING broadband to everywhere they can (and Hint: they are trying to bring it everywhere they can WITHOUT losing money and anywhere they can make a profit). In what I guess is long gone America, Companies actually had a right to make money off their investments – ESPECIALLY if they are LEGAL investments.
Right on, right on, right on.
You sound like El Rushbo ! And thank you for your comment….
Um, I tend to conclude that a commenter who describes persons with whom he disagrees as "pseudoconservatives", "corporate fascists", and "their favorite right-wing hate monger" might possibly be one of those lefties we all hear about.
I am no fan of ComCast, for example, they are a typical rent-seeking big business that buys infleunce to line their pockets while they screw their customers as often as not. But the FCC has the likelihood to be far worse. Net neutrality is a good concept, and a bad idea because of regulators- you will never be able to trust them, as Dr. Friedman pointed out 50 years ago.
Actually listening to him Right now. I still meant it thought, Right on.
The only ignorant person is you, JPA, and you reveal it by using a standard idiot-left term "hate monger", to describe conservative radio. Only people who don't listen to it describe it as "hate", and they do this the make it out to be something bad, awful, and scary that must be destroyed. So you complain about the lack of analysis when you reveal yourself as someone who doesn't analyze things at all. My geez, I love you leftists. You defeat yourselves and all I have to do is point it out.
Net neutrality is a law (and a bureaucracy) looking for a reason to exist. There is NO CURRENT PROBLEM, thus why change anything? If a service provider prioritizes traffic in such a way that the customer experience is diminished or wrecked, we'll get mad and move to someone else. If that doesn't work, we'll petition our Congressmen and take it from there. The FCC needs to stay the freak out of it or better yet — just disband.
"If you like internet freedom then you should favor net neutrality."
hm. we don't have net neutrality right now, and i can go wherever i want on the internet. i can even go to my local public library and do it for free, though i don't.
there are more individual voices getting their opinion out to more people than ever before in the history of man. i think we can do without net neutrality.
How to fight high costs:
If Comcast is ripping you off, get a DSL line.
If both are sticking it to you, go satellite.
Comcast wanted $5000.00 to install a node to service my needs, BEFORE hooking me up. That was two years ago.
Qwest supplies all of us here in my neighborhood now. Who's losing? Not Qwest…
You government "net neutrality" folks want to help? Let's tie you together, toss you into a UFC cage, and add a couple of tigers on PPV…the proceeds to help purchase install infrastructure to the underserved…
Kind of a side note, but related – Being on the inside of this issue because I'm an IT tech – almost all of those cases where the company is throttling, is where some spammer or video hacker has set up SERVERS in their house – with a HOME broadband line, which in the Contract you sign says you won't run a Server or Business on that line. When their usage is through the roof, they get what they signed their contract for – throttled back. And then they complain because they don't want to pay for a business line (which costs more because of the higher limits). I read 5-10 of these "complaint" every week.
Which is why – in the last couple years – they have more and more resorted to getting more trojans and bot programs out there on computers around the world, so OTHER peoples broadband lines will get used instead of their own.
And for you others – you want to see the result of "Net Neutrality" regulations – just look at China!
Um, yeah, right now the internet is still basically neutral. The reason for net neutrality laws is that there are all sorts of indications that in the near future, the internet will be a place where free information is controlled by multinational corporate giants like AT&T and ComCast. The internet s a bastion of "neutral" information flow without constraints dependent on the provider's profit. It's not about the companies losing profit with no net neutrality; it's about companies exploiting the nature of free, electronic information to make another buck at a significant societal cost.
Um, see above…?
All I see in this argument is the "government is bad" mantra and an assumption that I'm in the nebulous "lefty" group.
On the contrary, I did provide a brief analysis. And what did you provide? I never said hate radio must be destroyed, I just pointed out what it is–a breeding ground for hatred and anti-intellectualism. Did you know that original conservatism was rooted in intellectual thought? The charlatans you have on radio (Rush, Hannity, etc.) don't know what real conservatism is.
"there are more individual voices getting their opinion out to more people than ever before in the history of man."
You will be able to keep enjoying that if government acts to protect the individual like it's supposed to according to the Constitution.
Really? You mean those "indicators" being reported BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Yeah, go ahead and believe those and see where that gets ya. And there's not forcing everyone onto the Gubment's plan in the health care bill. And there was no pork in the bail out bills.
As long as the cable companies enjoy the monopolies that they have over much of the country, then they should not be able to throttle or restrict content. Yes, Comcast has a contract that they are the only ones who can provide cable service in my county.
Ah yes, falling back on the typical liberal mantra. Is this scottzzz's new sign on?
Outside of the Military, please tell us what programs have actually helped people? Welfare, wasn't that suppose to end poverty? Post Office – service gets worse and then still raise prices? Care to enlighten us where government is "good"?
And WHERE is this current Government do you get the idea that they give a flying @#$& about "the individual"? What about all the stock holders (individuals) of GM and Chrysler? They specifically went against ESTABLISHED bankruptcy laws and screwed them over for the Unions. How about all those ever increasing UN-EMPLOYED (individuals)? Wasn't the bail out suppose to stop that instead of being payback to political backers…and Unions?
It seems the only "individuals" this Administration "cares" about are ones that HELP them politically.
(and you actually have the GALL to bring the Constitution into this argument??? Please explain what part of the Constitution says it's any of their business to stick their nose in this? The Government is to protect the people against foreign and domestic ENEMIES (like the terrorist at Ft. Hood), and STAY OUT OF BUSINESSES WAY…but then it's clear you don't understand this part of what the Government isn't allowed to do according to the Constitution.)
You do know there are other broadband providers beside the cable company right? I don't even have cable but I have broadband.
No, not by the government. You're tearing at straw men.
I don't deny that our government has been fostering a welfare-warfare state, but I hope you realize that both parties benefit and nurture this arrangement.
Regarding good programs, I'd say the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were good. Even the best right-wing hacks can't refute the fact that since the two programs were implemented in the 1970's, our air and water has gotten remarkably better. But maybe you are the kind of person who would have shouted against it at the time?
Then who? (and please don't say that GOVERNMENT sponscered report from some little known European "group". But if you wanna claim that one – go ahead, then we will REALLY know where you are coming from)
Where did I say the current government has been protecting the individual? Government has turned intoa tool of the corporatocracy, both parties included. I agree they should have let the big banks and automakers fail, but saying this was all for the unions is severely short-sighted. This is the product of a system run by a central banking cartel called the Federal Reserve, and politicians from both parties that aid and abet that system to fill their own pockets.
And yes, I have the "gall" to bring up the Constitution. I'll go toe to toe with you any day.
Spoken like a true lefty nitwit. Rush and Hannity are not hate radio. They, unlike the left, actually have facts on their side. The left are the trash talkers because they've got nothing else. When you can't refute the message, kill the messenger. That's the left's mantra.
Spend a week watching Glen Beck's show. If you dare. It's an eye-opener. He uses the left's own words against them. He has great researchers on his team and equally great, knowledgeable guests.
You expect the Obama administration to adhere to the Constitution? Excuse me while I laugh. Obama has spent the last 11 months shredding and subverting that document. He doesn't care. He "won."
So wait? You say it's both parties that are screwing us, but for THIS you want to give them the "benefit" of actually BELIEVING them?
I'm confused as to what side you are on. They are screwing the "individual", but you want them to now "protect" the individual, when now you claim they aren't? Or is this one of those pick and choose moments, they do "other" stuff bad, but then will do "this" right?
(Your colors are starting to show…shhhhhh)
See Jacey's comment below.
Your previous comments belie your supposed knowledge of what the document actually means.
Well, for starters, there was the ComCast incident where they were found to be blocking an entire protocol as it related to BitTorrent users. Not going after heavy bandwidth users, but an entire protocol. But I'm not going to do all the work for you. Do a bit of research.
Hack Them before They Hack You.
Good points about what they started to do, but when they did what they were suppose to, did those Government Bureaucracies finish? No, they kept going and now they add cost to everything we do and buy, all for some gubment bigwig being in "control".
These are just like the Unions – at the time they were needed and used, but they have (for a long time now) out-lived their usefulness and morphed into bloated bureaucracies looking ONLY to keep themselves bloated on taxpayer monies.
Unlike you, I don't divide the world into black and white where it's all or none. Most of what the government has been doing for the past couple of decades has been for the benefit of their corporate/banking masters or their own power grabs. But every now and then, they will do something that actually benefits the regular citizen, as with the net neutrality law.
When I took a class called Critical Thinking, we used TV commercials to demonstrate all the logical fallacies that people employ when trying to make an argument. Rush, Hannity, and Beck would also make excellent subjects for demonstrating logical fallacies and the general practice of intellectual dishonesty.
Do you even know what BitTorrent is? Think Napster, but NOT advertised that way. Talk about bandwidth hogs. And yes, I do know, because I've had to clean up WAY to many users computers for the crap that BT lets in – the FIRST sign being router traffic to that computer…/sigh.
But guess what – the FREE market worked to fix it, didn't it?
Dude, BitTorrent is a major contributor to pirating software. I don't agree with Comcast capping their download amount, but in the way of free market, you have other choices you can go to, and that is the beauty. Government does not have to control every facet of our existence. Let the problem take care of itself. It will eventually, trust me.
Milton Friedman is one of the smartest men I have ever heard speak. Sorry, I had to throw that in there.
That's quite a generalization to make about me just for suggesting the the FCC ruling would protect the individual and therefore be Constitutional. Do you always engage in hyperbole?
OK, now we have a rational discussion. I know what BitTorrent is and I know it is a major contributor for pirating software. But ComCast should not be judging what should pass in the exchange of information. They should not be able to throttle certain content based on some arbitrary parameter.
There is a valid argument in whether government should step in to assure the continued free (not as in "pay nothing") flow of information. I'm very worried that the nature of the internet, the last refuge of unfiltered information, will become like a series of cable channels…where it's tough luck if you want to access an "independent" site as opposed to their superficial fluff channel.
Is there a point to this article other than throwing red meat to tinfoil hat pseudoconservatives? So typical of the modern right wing to spend all their energy on bashing groups of people rather than engaging in a serious discussion of the issue.
Like referring to people you disagree with as "tinfoil hat pseudoconservatives"?
Don't forget about the AP doing some real investigative journalism to expose it. Would you expect any of the 3 cable infotainment channels to break that kind of story?
Ahhhh…we got it now. They Lie!!
Please inform us of these lies. Times, dates.
"…But every now and then, they will do something that actually benefits the regular citizen…"
Bwahhahhahahahahahahahaahahahahhaaha
Thanks for the laughs!!! But you go right ahead and believe that from this bunch.
Tell you what, I'll do even better. Here's a brief description of intellectual dishonesty. Get to know what that's about and apply it as you listen to the named charlatans. The only question is, do they actually know the aspects of truth they are omitting, or is it really ignorance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishone...
Thank you for that. The FCC is there to promote it's OWN existence through it's own rulings.
And again – the Gubment is NOT THERE TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL!!! How many times do we have to say that. We know, you don't believe that, and that shows you know NOTHING about the Constitution and what it's for. It's to PREVENT the Gubment from don't what YOU want it to do.
So now the government has to "step in" for people to get information?? Please, AGAIN, tell us where this "right" is for people to use something that SOMEONE else spent money on (putting all the infrastructure to get internet to your house) for free? There is no "right" to have access to the internet.
Isn't that just like all those other Freebie's that they also do and now people think they are "rights"? – welfare, food stamps, etc. that the Gubment makes OTHER people pay?
FINALLY!!! The Wiki link!!! Dang it took you long enough!! Thanks for fulfilling your lib troll duty for this story!! We do miss scottzzz. He would have posted it about 2 hours ago though.
And what are they omitting? Times, dates?
Well, for a little while I thought you might actually be interested in a real discussion, but it's clear that you're just caught up in the Drudge/Rush/Faux News echo chamber. Happy trails trying to fit your square peg of a worldview into the roundness of reality.
Your continual use of "gubment" has a definite racist overtone. I shouldn't be surprised, that's one of the pinnacles of the Drudge/Rush/Faux News echo chamber. You just keep on memorizing those talking points, buddy…..
I suggest you stop drinking the koolaid, then try to read the Constitution again. Limit the power of government and protect the citizens' rights.
We can have a real discussion when you finally show you actually know what you're talking about. And not wiki links, and not claiming OTHERS are doing something without proof, and not FIRST calling everyone ELSE names and then claiming the high ground. You've executed all the classic troll tactics from your first post – but you didn't leave it at that, you kept trying to back it up with more horrible posts.
If it weren't the fact that you actually believe what you are typing, this would be a good joke (which I did point out with my humor). But that sarcasm passed right over your head too. You seem to think that I haven't been all over this world form the Middle East to Europe to SE Asia to Africa. I've SEEN first hand what happen to countries when STUPID policies like this are implemented, all with "the best intentions" when they were started.
Granted, Comcast should not be blocking anything, but if you don't like it, you have the option to move onto another ISP. As a company, they have the right to do whatever they want and bear the consequences of their actions. I will never use Comcast againg for their bandwidth throttling, and that is the choice of alot of other folks, and that is why they are raising prices. They will price themselves out of the market and it will be their fault, not the government regulating them to death. The very essence of free market priciples. If allowed to work, they will every time.
Awesome!! I get the race card pulled on me on this VERY website! You lost any credibility you still had.
(and again – sarcasm whizzed right over your head)
Sigh – what amendment is it where people have a "right" to internet access? And who needs to go read it again?
Just because you've visited those countries, that means that you have undertaken a comprehensive analysis of their policies (with respect to history, culture, etc.) and a comparative analysis with our own? You talk a good talk but I don't believe your walk. Granted, I did throw out a couple of labels in my first post for my own entertainment value. This place is an echo chamber if I ever saw one. But I'll take care in the future to tamp down on that in case anyone does care for a rational discussion (not you, obviously).
But, my friend, YOU were the one with the CONSTANT disparaging tone, even when others were attempting a civil discourse.
"A class" – that means you had about an 85% chance of being indoctrinated by a liberal.
Just because you can type, that means all your opinions are right?
See, anyone can make a cute saying. You don't believe my walk, that's your loss. You can throw out DEROGATORY labels, and then get on others for doing the same thing. So typical of all the libs that post on this site and others, because you can't see the truth right in front of your eyes, the person who brings them up must be "disparaging". That's just like an election ad bringing up a Democrat ACTUAL voting record being called an "Attack" ad.
You've contradicted yourself so many times in this ONE topic who is suppose to believe anything you say? You keep claiming you know all about the Constitution, and then say it's there for Gov. to GIVE people "rights' by "creating" new ones that aren't even IN the purview of the Gov. You say the Gov. have been bad and making bad decision, but then in another post say we should "trust" them in THIS issue. We keep pointing all these things out and you change to something else.
Net Neutrality is good. Without net neutrality the Internet will turn into the NYTimes because Comcast and all the other ISPs will cave into pressure groups to shut down web sites that the Anti-Defamation League calls "hate speech" and "anti-semitic"
[...] Have you noticed how we’re supposed to sacrifice while the well-placed make the big bucks? Net Neutrality Fight Causing New Rifts On the Left Freeloaders always get hit the hardest Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby Not good for [...]
"You will be able to keep enjoying that if government acts to protect the individual"
The implication being that voices are being silenced right now, or in the near future. Where is the evidence for this? The internet is functioning wonderfully, and "there are more individual voices getting their opinion out to more people than ever before in the history of man." So where is the case that the government needs to get involved?
You should get your money back for any class that use TV commercials as a bases of teaching critical thinking. You believe comercials more then reports with people to stand behind them?
I like how since my tv is hooked up with cable, I can get all of the channels. Channels that tv stations produce, and channels that my across the street neighbor runs. Oh wait… I forgot, there wasn't a thing called cable neutrality and instead of being able to connect to the many channels, I get to view the ones that my cable service provider provides. I also get to pay lots for access to extra channels.
Where does this sound familiar…
Dave, stop being a useful idiot. You have good intentions, you try yourself well informed and up to date. But you are being fed lies. The right wing groups have an awful agenda that is downright splitting this country apart; get rid of democrats, destroy them in the process, make money and get back into power. These groups aren't in it for you, or the rest of the american people.
Wow, are you an idiot. Go ahead and read the rest of the comment and you'll see what I posted above FOUR DAYS AGO is actually exactly what they are trying to do.
And being FREE from Government control is an "awful agenda"?? Which side of the isle likes to LABEL everyone and break them down into groups??
The Fairness Doctrine should never have been removed — this vital law said that the airwaves belonged to the public and companies using the airwaves for radio and TV broadcasts had to serve the public interest. Under the Fairness Doctrine there had to be balanced news reporting that was really balanced, The 6 o clock news hour was mandated — most media companies did not want to do news at 6 because it was unprofitable for them they wanted entertainment — also there had to be diversity of opinion (Rush Limbaugh could not be on the air all the time he could be on the air for 4 hrs but then someone else with a different opinion would have to occupy his station the other 4 hours) before the Fairness Doctrine was removed we had at least 60 companies controlling the radio — today thanks to media consolidation allowed since the Fairness Doctrine ended now only 5 Big Media companies control all the news we hear or see (Disney, News Corp, General Electric, CBS, Time Warner) and they own the majority of stations on the radio and TV. The Fairness Doctrine would have required FOX News (or Fixed News) to do more accurate reporting — there is misinformation about a liberal media in this country — we have a conservative media for sure and some liberal publications like The Nation but otherwise most of the media is conservative.
Today on the news we have partisan shouting matches, sensationalism, celebrity gossip, partisan spin and infotainment. We have to ask ourselves what has happened to our democracy? The answer: Big Media shoved it off the road, into a ditch and cried alligator tears all the way to the bank. (Big Media owners during the 8 year Bush Administration laid waste to journalistic integrity — correspondents like Chris Matthews and Jessica Yellin have now admitted their bosses were pro war on iraq and that slanted their coverage) what kind of media system allows our elected leaders to trick the American public anyway into supporting an unnecessary war (real hard hitting investigative journalism is expensive and Big Media would not pursue it because it would jeopardize Big Media's closed door relationship with politicians; advertisers did not want to see ads for happy meals and Humvees following gruesome images from Iraq so media companies do little or no reporting anymore on Iraq and when they do report they don't show the gruesome images; what's more it is profitable for them to deliver bad media — our consolidated broken media system needs to go) — for too long we have been made afraid by the media that was supposed to keep us informed. The Corporate Media which most people rely on is not a watchdog protecting us from the powerful it is a lap dog begging for scraps.
We do not get enough fresh diverse perspectives anymore. It is worth noting every time in American history a new transformative technology emerged with the power to give a voice to the voiceless there was a great moment of hope, we saw it when radio was invented in the 1920s, television in the 1950s, cable television in the 1980s. Each time media moguls sent their lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they got off the ground. Each time the American public was unaware laws were being passed in their name behind closed doors that were killing the dream. Each time American democracy was ignored for the sake of expanding corporate power. However, we have an opportunity with the Internet — we have a tool that not only speaks truth to power it defends truth from power. We can use the Internet to save the Internet for all Americans.
Mind you Net Neutrality is not a liberal idea — even the Christian Coalition a right wing religious group has published an essay for the Conservative Case for Net Neutrality. This country has always had Net Neutrality protections — but the last few years of the Bush Administration the FCC gutted its Net Neutrality rules and its authority to protect Net Neutrality.
We know the Internet will go down one of two paths — the first is the righteous path of openness and non discrimination where anyone with a good idea can make it big — companies like Google that started out small and became big could not have had the success they have today without Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality rules require every ISP to become a dumb pipe taking you to the same Internet. If an ISP also owns its own content distribution system like Time Warner Cable having Digital Cable TV service they could not under Net Neutrality discriminate against their Internet customers using iTunes, XBox Live, or even VUDU to purchase/rent and download movies in favor of Time Warner's own VOD platform.
I love these Alinskyites who think they can push their hidden agendas with lies, name calling, and fear mongering. No we don't want/need the Fairness Doctrine or Net Neutrality to infringe on the 1st amendment The Free Market is taking down these Obamaite New World Order Whores that pose as journalists these days, check the ratings and market prices and compare them to News Corp. An Army of Davids on the internet and airwaves is getting the free market truth out there for the beleagered tax paying people of this country.
Actually, as to the infrastructure/investment issue, if we assume that investment of capital involves in general a certain "particle of risk", and then examine the issue with this in mind, the netcom companies risked actually very little if anything in such quasi-private ventures. I say "quasi"-private in reference to the fact that while a handful of well-positioned companies privately reaped & collected 100% of the generated profits, the capital resources allocated to the project of infrastructure development by these corporations were, from the start, contractually guarenteed to be almost entirely offset by what amount to subsidies from the federal government (which had decided to incentivize this type of investment via the dual-mechanisms of long-term tax exemption and legislated [ie: legalized] monopolies).
So in regard to the right of a given private corporation to profit limitlessly from its infrastructural "investments" in a developing market that could only have expanded as it did with the legislative support and involvement of the federal government, I'd like to point out the following small but relevent detail:
The federal subsidization of market-expansion and infrastructure-development enjoyed by the teleco's (especially early on) was in most instances granted *conditionally* with understanding the (in many cases explicit/contractual) that the investments thus enabled actually produce infrastructure adequate to meet certain performance mandates within specified periods. You can read up on the details yourself for specifics, but suffice it to say that given the extraordinary, almost fraudulent degree of failure by the largest corporate recipients of targeted government aid to fulfill their side of such agreements, I don't think it is beyond the appropriate role of the same legislature that made possible their success to respond to the unfulfilled obligations with profit-limiting measures if doing so would be even slightly beneficial to taxpayers in anyway.
…Just my $.02.
-emily
Thanks alot, for the detailed post!!
Here, I found a youtube video about xbox live hacks: that I would like to share- Xbox live hacks!…
But seriously, great post and thanks allot !!
i look ahead to your next post !!
hacking become a big industry as of now, so the government should act hardly to stop this.
Ca Homes For Sale