Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
Mennayar{Back}
2299 Followers
Casey Butt
251 Followers
Scarlett Madison
6707 Followers
Great Mind
1317 Followers
Closed AccountJul 27, 2010
It would help if the FCC were to loosen the licensing requirements for new broadcasters to enter the market. With air television, most markets have at most 6 channels, and there are like over 90 slots on most TVs. Now mandating the switch to HD for EVERYBODY didn't help out the situation at all.
Another thing is to NOT bailout the MSM outlets that are failing. The internet has a cornucopia of independent outlets, and this can be the wave of the future as long as the government doesn't ruin it.
mdellingJul 28, 2010
The switch from analog to digital was needed because of inefficient spectrum utilization. The whole point of the switch was to free up spectrum for new forms of communication. It was most certainly a good thing.
s73v3rJul 28, 2010
The biggest problem actually was loosening the restriction on the total number of media outlets a particular entity could own in a given market.
badqatJul 27, 2010
Hey Al - how about we concentrate on the corporate takeover of government?
pintomp3Jul 27, 2010
People who oppose net neutrality don't understand how the internet works.
hydesJul 27, 2010
is it anything like magnets?
laminacJul 28, 2010
it seems like we are trying to solve problems that don't currently exist. Yes Comcast got in trouble for denying p2p service, but as far as I know that has been the limit and they have stopped.
Are companies blocking access to web pages that I am not aware of? Also if George Bush, Richard Nixon or any president you completely distrust were in power would you want them with the power to "regulate" the internet?
laminacJul 28, 2010
@pintomp3, oh so we don't need to do anything because the government doesn't do anything to guarantee free speech. It is actually the government's lack of action that guarantee's free speech. the first amendment says CONGRESS shall PASS NO LAW ABRIDGING FREE SPEECH. It is a restriction on CONGRESS not the people.
dwtcJul 28, 2010
From the wikipedia article linked above:
"[Robert Pepper (senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and the former FCC chief of policy development)] says 'The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.'"
That's kind of a straw man argument against Net Neutrality. The idea isn't that without Net Neutrality the wealthy get faster connections than the poor (that is, and should be the case with or without Net Neutrality -- that you get the access that you pay for). And the problem isn't ISPs continuing to do what they are doing. The problem is the threat of ISPs providing preferential treatment to some content sources over others, or to some protocols. The problem Net Neutrality is designed to prevent is ISPs having a say in what content we receive, or how well certain websites work for their customers.
Net Neutrality isn't about an oppressive pile of regulation, it's about ground rules that solidify what the internet has always been.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigJul 28, 2010
"The problem is the threat of ISPs providing preferential treatment to some content sources over others, or to some protocols. "
Who cares if they give preferential treatment to someone if they give you satisfactory service? There might be times when giving preferential treatment to different protocols might be desirable to customers. If it speeds up the pace of innovation because of business sponsorship in exchange for additional service, would people reject it?
I value the idea of an unbiased access to the internet, actually, but government is the last entity I would entrust with such an activity.
"The problem Net Neutrality is designed to prevent is ISPs having a say in what content we receive, or how well certain websites work for their customers."
Seems more like a bunch of regulation and not a productive plan of action, but overall it DOES NOT address monopoly privilege by major corporations who are using the law to stiff consumers and rest on their laurels when they could be improving the infrastructure.
s73v3rJul 28, 2010
Bulls**t. Service providers have already shown their willingness to do so, and are simply waiting for their chance. AT&T's CEO has gone on record as saying he thinks Google should pay for access to his company's subscribers (completely ignoring the fact that Google is one of the reasons why people subscribe to his s**tty service in the first place). Comcast has been caught f**king with the traffic of people using P2P protocols on their network. Why do you want to wait for things to get worse when we can just say right now, "f**k you, we don't want you doing that s**t, so knock it the f**k off."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vbullingerJul 28, 2010
"Service providers have already shown their willingness to do so, and are simply waiting for their chance."
Well, for what are they waiting? Explain it to my like I'm retarded, as you guys seem to think I am.
The internet works right now perfectly as you want it, right? So why are you trying to find boogeymen to fight?
If things change, I'll start an ISP that doesn't do that kind of crap and charge better rates. Then, you all can join. Sound good?
baja01Jul 28, 2010
@vbullinger
ISPs are waiting to see how legislation turns out. The last thing they want to do right now is to start up the practices that net neutrality would protect against. Please stop kidding yourself that ISPs aren't watering at the mouth for a chance to gouge content providers for more money and to kick all high usage protocols off their networks.
s73v3rJul 28, 2010
@vbullinger: We like the internet more or less as it is now. Which is why we want it to stay that way. We don't have any faith in Comcast or AT&T to keep it that way. And, as has been shown time and again, most people don't have much of a choice for their provider. So what are they to do if they have no faith in their provider to remain neutral? And for most people, starting their own or moving aren't options.
dwtcJul 28, 2010
@s73v3r: Comcast has also caused problems for people using a VoIP provider that competed with Comcast's phone service in the area.
@PeppermintPig:
"Who cares if they give preferential treatment to someone if they give you satisfactory service?"
That's exactly the problem. Getting satisfactory service means that if I pay for my Internet access, Comcast had better not degrade access to hulu.com because it competes with their own cable TV offerings. Customers pay ISPs to be able to access the internet, not the corner of the internet that has made friends with the ISP. The way things have been working (in general, the noted Comcast problems aside) is the way they should continue to work. That's the point of Net Neutrality.
"If it speeds up the pace of innovation because of business sponsorship in exchange for additional service, would people reject it?"
Google shouldn't have to "sponsor" Comcast or AT&T or any other ISP to enable customers to keep having the same experience they enjoy today.
"Seems more like a bunch of regulation and not a productive plan of action, but overall it DOES NOT address monopoly privilege by major corporations who are using the law to stiff consumers and rest on their laurels when they could be improving the infrastructure."
It's not a "bunch of regulation", it's a small set of simple and straightforward ground rules for ISPs to follow. It may not encourage monopoly corporations to improve their infrastructure (what law can do that?) but it will help protect paying customers who have no choice in their Internet provider (other than whether or not to have Internet access). Comcast is the only hard-wired broadband Internet provider in my neighborhood, but they just bought NBC (along with MSNBC). What if I want to get to foxnews.com or glennbeck.com, but I can't, because they promote MSNBC's political pundits and shows above foxnews'? I have no other options, and I'm in a heavily populated area.
laminacJul 28, 2010
@dwtc
I'm calling bull crap... you have access to more than comcast in your area. If you don't have DSL you aren't in a "heavily populated area" also I bet you can get satellite internet, if you wanted to dump comcast
In my area (Salt Lake) I have about 4 different providers I can choose from and our area isn't huge by any stretch of the imagination that also isn't including satellite internet.
dwtcJul 29, 2010
@laminac:
I'm in Utah County, right where two cities butt up against each other. It's far from rural... I've got 4 big box stores within a half mile of my house. There is one small field right next to our house, which will probably be houses and office buildings within a couple of years. Everything else in almost every other direction is houses. Qwest DSL doesn't reach our house (I've been checking regularly for the past 5 years, even though I hate Qwest with a passion... I'd like to be able to have some options I can use). Almost the entire city is covered by what used to be a city-owned network that ends about a half-block from our house, so we can't sign up for that, either.
I'm surprised anyone would mention satellite, when wireless providers like Clearwire (just barely available in the area), Digis and Utah Broadband are available, which all have to have much less latency than satellite, but I'm not even optimistic about those... We use VoIP for our home phone service, and some of our neighbors use Utah Broadband and Digis with VoIP, and when we talk to them on the phone we get weird connection issues, so the wireless providers are not going to meet my needs.
I'm not denying that it's regulation, just that it's a "bunch of regulation"... "Bunch of" may be a subjective term, but the FCC already laid out its proposal with 4 simple principles. Considering how much of the internet was paid for by the US government (both in terms of initial development and in subsidies for infrastructure), I'd say the government should be able to lay down some ground rules to prevent ISPs from fragmenting the internet into the sites they're friends with vs. the sites they aren't.
dwtcJul 28, 2010
It's not a truck that you can just dump stuff on.
buzamanJul 28, 2010
Corporate TV and Newspapers are a dying medium, they can't compete against a dozen good journalists and decent web site. It's very obvious why the Corporate State is searching for any reason to regulate and control the internet. But if the US government didn't have it's Corporate organ media who else will be there to quote government officials and tow the State line all day long?
kmeyer86Jul 28, 2010
I'm proud that this man is my senator.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
I'm proud that He is your Sen. also and happy that he is not mine.
He stoled the damn seat dummy.
kmeyer86Aug 14, 2010
Sounds like a certain president I know.
holmzzJul 28, 2010
You have plenty of candor, I'll give you that.
sacrabosJul 28, 2010
Franken is great at making eloquent irrelevant points. Franken completely misses the entire issue. Media has always been owned by corporations, so that hasn't changed. What has actually changed is that the media gives the people what they want, rather than what they need. So instead of investigative journalism, more often we get entertainment which has the appearance of news. Too often the interviewer ask softball questions, news conferences and "town halls" are staged events and the media allows it. We're more interested in Lindsay Lohan's fingernail than what's really going on. News is more about sound bites than sound journalism.
This is what needs to be fixed, even though it's probably to Franken's detriment (as well as many other politicians).
mayopJul 28, 2010
Every time we cut taxes we only cut them for the poorest people, and every time we raise them, we only raise them for the richest. The rich are now footing pretty much the entire bill for our wasteful bloated government. This is extortion. What gives you the right to spend someone else's money? (and for the record, I'm probably poorer than any of you...)
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
== http://www.Lttsy.com ===
The new update, a large hot ..
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT.
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
chahrlie5Jul 28, 2010
Says the man who made it big on NBC
relay2005Jul 28, 2010
Franken sucks! There have been 11 bills thrown in front of him and he has only voted on 2, why? Because he doesn't want to spoil anything if he comes back to haunt him. Amy K. has Voted on 10 of those 11. Stop supporting this freak!
osko2052Aug 1, 2010
Al's just upset because Air America was such a dismal failure.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Franken/Grayson= 2 f**king IDIOTS.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
The media is owned by the leftists,corp.s bow to save they're ass.
Go find a brain.
kdx200riderAug 14, 2010
Should we begin by dismantling the media giants, like NYT, Boston Globe, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC...et al? Then maybe we could get some unbiased coverage by organizations who have not been guilty of trying to influence a Presidential election.
loopbizAug 15, 2010
This thread is full of a mixture of truth and bulls**t.
People are too damned lazy to vote, so you get the government you deserve, with voter turnout hanging around 25% to 60%
In case you didn't notice, the government, not corporations controls the military.
But corporations spray money around like it was confetti.
Where do you think they got that money?
Massive chunks of it was handed to them by the government and corporation pay it back.
Why is it that all these politicians are multi-millionaires? - they didn't all start off that way.
Even now, many people still say everything is Bush's fault, but the Democrats have controlled congress since 2006.
And don't tell me that Bush was a total idiot, yet he hoodwinked the democrats for 8 years - get real!
So many people want the government to do everything for them. - even to think!
What happens is up to you, nobody else. stop bellyaching and do something about it.
Don't hand your right to vote and control your destiny to anyone else, educate yourself and get off your butt and let your reps know what you think - and let them know you vote.
And after voting, stay vigilant and stay on your rep's back.
In the meantime, so many people support the corporations you are complaining about, making them bigger and stronger and giving them the ability to get what they want.
I think private enterprise is good - the engine that drives America is small business. The thing that is wrong is the lobbyists and the money sloshing around in government. The democrats, who many people want to do everything for them are the ones receiving most of this money. The theory was that all the lobbying would stop under Obama. Somehow, I don't think that is true, yet many people act as though it was true, or they are just happy to give the democrats a free pass because they arent the Republicans. Well, it seems they are pretty close to clones of each other, playing word games, writing massive legislation that nobody reads and changing the wording in their committees at the last minute, so nobody can do anything about it. They also play clever games such as stuffing bad bills with good legislation from their opposition, to force the other party to vote for it, or if they vote against it, they can use it as a hammer against them at a later date.
Don't hand the media over to government control. Otherwise, you could end up with a clone of the post office. Or maybe thats what you want?
Instead, support small media and let big media know what you think about what they do. The feedback is important.