So who here wants the government to rule the internet

Net Neutrality requires government intervention in normal business practices that are what has created the internet access you find so important. Comcast may have more influence than you like but it has been one of the creaters of the internet, whereas government is destructive of whatever it touches. If Comcast becomes too intransigent in its dealings with other businesses, it will lose market share. People and other companies will find a way around it. When government is intransigent, you're screwed.

I like your sig line. Things do happen for a reason. Government gets big, intrusive and oppressive when the people let them. Businesses get big either because they please their customers or because they buy government favor.

 

This nitpicking is irrelevant to the point I was making. The fairness doctrine imposed government requirements on business that impeded their ability to present content their customers actually wanted. It was effectively government suppression of political speech. To your claim however, the fairness doctrine did at times impose an equal time stipulation. Since it was a regulation promulgated by the FCC rather than a codified law, the requirements were subject to the whims of federal regulators. Your "common sense" would have required an equal hearing of the "pro-lynching" position if someone on a show espoused an "anti-lynching" point of view. Aside from it being an unwarranted intrusion in local broadcast decisions, compliance became a bureaucratic nightmare, resulting in programming devoid of anything potentially controversial. The point is that government intervention effectively killed talk radio.

The most obvious and likely initial effect of Net Neutrality will be that government will interfere with necessary resource allocation where demand exceeds capacity. If the government decides that everything must be neutral, the pipe gets divided, not on the most efficient model, not on the most consumer friendly model, but rather on the political model. If everyone gets the same amount of bandwidth by government fiat, all services suffer equally, if some company's lobbyists are particularly effective they get their rules imposed and everybody else suffers at their expense. If politicians decide they don't like what people say about them on youtube maybe their service suffers.

A likely secondary effect will be a stifling of innovation. Netflix is solving the problem it had by creating its own content delivery network, including caching appliances that will improve their service. If their content delivery system and their caching servers are subject to Net Neutrality rules does that mean Youtube and Amazon also get to use that infrastructure too? If Netflix doesn't get to control who uses their infrastructure, they have less incentive to build it. If it benefits their competitors that further reduces their incentive.

 

There was no 'equal time' rule, that is BS made up by the people who wanted it abolished so they could present their viewpoints unchallenged. The doctrine only had two parts: it required broadcasters

(1) to cover vital controversial issues in the community and

(2) to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints.

That's it. It was an attempt to assure that the public was made aware of controversial issues, and that apposing sides could be heard. You don't need equal time to tell the truth, it is the lies that are complicated and need to be marketed.

What dems are promoting currently is neither fair or rational. You cannot keep the public from hearing the truth, which is why both sides riddle the airwaves with misinterpreted BS, in a word, lies!

 

(1) How did the FCC determine that vital controversial issues had been addressed sufficient to the doctrine?

(2) How did the FCC determine that reasonable opportunity had been given?

Surely there was a time component to these determinations, though any enforcement of such a vague rule would be arbitrary and subjective.

This is still irrelevant to the point that the FCC's enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine interfered with broadcast content and suppressed a great deal of any content that might have been considered controversial.

 

It did not. Good lord. They didn't have 24 hour scripted news networks back then. The controversial topics were public interest topics, like trash pick/up, school budgets, and buying new equipment for the park, and up and coming ballot initiatives, excessive noise ordinances, littering, and cleaner water, etc... Nationally the communist threat, terrorists, gangs, drugs, etc... same (*)(*)(*)(*) different day.

Unfortunately tabloid news-casting has become the norm and of course this madness cannot be managed in any manner. The real problem was this idiotic attempt at suppressing other more rational voices to begin with, and when the truth seemed like a good cause, that didn't fit well with the manipulators and the con artists, who wanted the public swayed by half truths, discrimination, and propaganda. I agree it can't be managed today, because reasonable maturity and rational sensibility was tossed out the window several decades ago.

People are to the point where they will believe anything that is spoon fed to them as long as it is against the other parties beliefs. IOW you can't fix stupid, and that is what we have become as a society. You can sit and watch 5 different channels and never get the full truth, on a particular topic, just misleading information, statistical BS, and unchallenged discriminating commentary. Boy howdy more of that is exactly what needs to be upheld and fought for.

Look I just corrected the silly notion that you are regurgitating about the actual Fairness Doctrine and this imaginary one the republican party created in the 1980's. You want to continue to rationalize BS so be it. Idiocy like this is the reason this country is doomed to continue to fail. You should be proud defending the protection of lies and deceit over the truth and/or reality.

 

Sure. Fill your mind with whatever you please.

 

The changes in radio programming that occurred when the Fairness Doctrine was no longer enforced clearly illustrate that it did suppress editorial content. Talk radio would not exist as it does if it had to comply with Fairness Doctrine requirements. The rest of your diatribe was even more irrelevant to the point I made.

 

I think it should be under approximately the same rules as newspapers. That would mean decency policies, libel laws.

If you need porn, keep Playboy in business. If you need to vent anger and call names, buy a punching bag. If you want to disseminate true, useful and interesting information that is fit for mixed company, the Internet is fine. That's how I feel about the Net.
We don't allow the newspapers to go way out of bounds for a very good reason. That same reason should apply to any form of public information delivery.

 

There is basically no audience interested in what the left has to say. So if you present liberal viewpoints to counter Cons', then the station ends up with less listeners/viewers, and they might end up cancelling ALL talk radio. That's what I've heard. It makes sense, if it actually works out that way.

No liberal talk show seems to do well. That's darn good proof that no one(including themselves) cares to hear their dark, negative outlook.

 

I'm starting to think Net Neutrality is Jesus and Santa Claus all wrapped into one.

You laud the importance of high speed internet, and I agree. I work at home and my job depends on high speed internet. Meanwhile some other posters in this very thread complain about high prices and can't wait for "Net Neutrality" to either lower prices or make the internet free.

Where is this coming from? This has nothing to do with the regulations being proposed by the FCC. It's like Obamacare all over again; every tear will be wiped away and everyone's wildest dreams will come true.

 

"I have to assume you are an agent of a hostile government."

Thanks. I will.

 

That would be the Government of India, and no the Narendra Modi does not own my soul.

 

No actually, that would the government of America and yes they do own your soul.

 

Establishments or govs only want one thing, that people respond to the information they put out via their media and the internet.
So if a president want to control the internet (ofcourse a majority don't want that), they've already got you in control, because people respond to their bad policies and information.

People need to start their own local open networks, direct links from p2p without the big sites google, youtube, facebook and cnn. Become independent from the big systems/hubs. Because that way nobody can take control over communication and information.
Because that is the main reason why a gov wants control over the internet, to have control over how people communicate, they want people communicate with their information only.

 

I love someone who provides misinformation--also called lies--and then whines that an honest debate isn't possible. The "fairness doctrine" wasn't about "allowing" positions to be heard. The only entity, the only one, capable on disallowing that would be the government. Consider the current situation where the liberals control, with government support, most of the media. The small number of conservative media outlets still gets attacked by the government which can't tolerate any dissent or criticism.

And, some want to tighten the government control over the media and the new media on the internet.

 

Simply put---------------if we have government control over the media and the internet, we will no longer be a free people.

 

Well you are wrong. That is exactly what the 'Fairness Doctrine was all about, and it was all it was all about. Pretending it was something else is blatant misinformation. What the democrats are trying to create is exactly what the republicans have been saying the fairness doctrine was all along, but it wasn't.

The 800 lb gorilla in the room though is that all the democrats want will shift from one party to the next depending on who controls the government. IOW when one corporate owned party isn't in control the other is, and there are only 2, so they are covered one way or the other, no matter what the government appears to be.

The government isn't the bad guy, it is just a tool, but the two parties who control it "ARE". Blaming the government is no different than blaming the gun for the act of a murderer. And who controls (owns) the two parties?

The same 6 corporations who own 90% of the media (that's everything we read, watch, or listen too), and already control over 70% of the cable market. That basically means that 232 corporate executives script the information 277 million people are spoon fed. Written news, well although the 'liberal caricature' Time Warner that ranks at the top where internet news is concerned, it is News Corp, 'the conservative caricature', who leads the way owning the top three news papers on three different continents. And how about radio? Well according to the rules of the FCC, no entity can own more than 40 stations. Unfortunately neither of the two parties follow the rules, and Clear Channel is allowed to own over 1200 stations, and in one market in the USA they own every station. The other 80% of the radio formats are music channels and they are all set up on the same playlists, dictated by the top 6 as well. Movies? The top 6 make 2 1/2 times more than ALL the next 132 studios combined.

So basically if you are paying attention in the past 30 years, the country went from 50 different corporate entities to 6, and eventually with all the deregulating and ignoring regulations all together by the FCC, or more to the point, the best government corporate money can buy, that number will continue to dwindle until there are only 3 so that a monopoly cannot be declared even though they will all be coordinating their efforts to mislead and confuse the public at large. So until sanity returns and/or the two party system is finally recognized for what it actually is, a scam, no honest debate will ever be held on who or what is really controlling this nation, and driving it into extinction from within. You can never stop one side when both are in cahoots.

 

...and if something, say the government, isn't standing vigilantly by to assure that the press is actually a free press, we the people are not free, and haven't been for some time now.

 

joe

Like the MSM being in bed with Obama. It is in effect Obama's Pravda!!!!!

 

Who told you that BS? Oh yea the corporate owned media that controls talk radio, and the government itself.

Look the only reason talk radio is appealing is because of its shock jock approach.It isn't as informative as it is entertaining to the people who want to be told what they want to hear. Offering intelligent counter points, truthful relevant facts, and honest debate on topics the audience has already preconceived notions about isn't entertaining, in fact it is down right disheartening to be informed daily that you are misinformed or wrong about your prejudices and intolerance. Having that familiar voice confirm your ignorance on a daily basis is comforting, and down right gratifying. And that goes for either sides particular bias.

One sided news isn't news it is programming/brainwashing. Willingness to accept it without question is insanity.

 

joe

The one sided leftwing monoply the MSM had is now broken. That is why the leftwingers are so pizzed. The news is no longer leftwing one sided.

 

I don't believe in a soul, thank you, but that't the only reason I think the government doesn't own it. And the important question is who owns the government?

On this issue I'm really low information, not really knowing or understanding if net neutrality is good or not. It SOUNDS good, but on the net that is just not enough.

Frex, I just had to downgrade my computer considerably and now I notice that lots of sites just won't load at all. Is that because they are "off" sites (as many of them seem to be) or because my (*)(*)(*)(*)ty little laptop can't handle anything or maybe a combination of both?

(I'm going to put that into the tech questions forum too. If that's not allowed I respectfully ask that the mods just delete it without banning me, thank you)

 

Any news source within the top 6 is the MSM. MSM is a nice catch phrase but nothing more. And it isn't Obama's anything, Obama is their corporate owned sock puppet to prop up, just like Bush was Fox's when he was in the same position. But I agree, and people who lean that way eat that (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

The very fact that liberals are such adamant supporters of "net neutrality" is the very reason "net neutrality" can't be a good thing for America. Liberals are contrary indicators to what is good and bad, so for that reason alone, we can know with certainty that "net neutrality" is nothing more than code word for government intrusion into the internet; with "net neutrality" simply being the stepping stone for getting there. That is something to be against, not for.

You don't have to be a tech geek to know these things, just an observer of which way the wind is blowing. When the liberal wind blows north, go south my friend.

 

Actually they do well, they simply do not have the stations to support such a venture, and maintain the profits necessary to remain valid. It is a numbers game. The more listeners the more advertising dollars, and the equation/formula for determining the size of the listening audience is much better evaluated by the sheer volume of stations, not the number of listeners in the range of a station. Perfect example of why having access to only one point of view is so damaging. It has already been determined that the way audiences are tabulated is antiquated and largely incorrect. There are a number of ways this is being measured now and basically the people who say it is working are the same people who have the most to lose if it isn't.

Look at it like this. For a number of years, the manner in which audiences was measured for talk radio was based on an equation for AM radio in the early 60's when that was the most popular format listened too. They still are today. It is like any sample survey. One person who claimed to listen was accountable for thousands of supposed listeners. Now take a moment and think about it. Would you account the popularity of a song today if it was measuring the number of 45 records sold? Of course not because most people do not buy 45's these days. And the ratio of people listening to the AM dial is no where comparable to the number who listen today.

Now take a look at how Nealson ratings are figured for a regular program. Let's use something like 60 minutes that comes on once a week. Somebody takes the survey, only one person is really represented in the survey and they are accounted for as if they were 25,000 viewers. Now let's look at something like Opra, or Rush. If a person takes the survey and puts down that they watch it faithfully, each and every day, it is only one person taking the survey, but now they represent 5 different people, who account for 25,000 people each who are supposedly a viewer. The more stations you are on the more people appear to be watching, even though, some of those stations represented don't even have 25,000 people in their listening area much less 25,000 different people listening each and every day. Just imagine is a small AM station in nowhere USA with a population of 2,000 people has 2 people who did the survey, and listened to a daily program. According to the equation used, in a single week those two people represent 125,000 listeners, when there probably isn't 6-8 thousand people in ear shot of the frequency being sent out. This isn't an attack on the programs, it is simply logic based on an antiquated system that never should have been valid in the first place.

It is very sad that people do not actually pay attention to the BS they are fed by unscrupulous individuals they are led to believe and trust, simply because they are constantly being programmed with bias, misleading information.