|
|
Of course the liberal media and dems can still work/play their own version of the "Fairness Doctrine" like this below no matter what happens.
LINK
Anti-'Obamacare' Ad Placed
On Critical List by NBC, ABC
Refusal by networks to run national ad critical of president's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot
Make a list of assassinated US figures.Originally Posted by saltydawg
Then make a list of how many of them received threats from the ones that killed them.
k?
Gonna have to agree with you on this one, db. Although, I don't know that you can lump Tyler and others in the same boat just because they agree with him on other issues.
The FCC recently stated that they'd be pushing for net-neutrality. (Something I support)
Taken from wikipedia:A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.Is this pushing for net neutrality part of the "fairness doctrine"?
If so, in this respect, I am in full support.
Internet regulation is not a good idea, IMO. Slippery slope. And the government is always a couple of steps ahead of the people it wishes to rule.
Are you against net neutrality then?
Absolutely. Let the market work it out. That's what capitalism is all about.
Not exactly. That's why we have the FDIC, and anti-trust laws. If we let the market just sort these things out, it wouldn't bode well for the little guy a lot of times.
We need consumer protection laws.
This may seem like an appeal to authority, and maybe it is, but Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others (including Lawrence Lessig) have spoken out strongly in favor of network neutrality.
Would you like to pay tolls to enter certain parts of the internet? Not me. That's why I'm for net neutrality.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.When Boorack and the dems slip the fairness doctine by us sometime in the future, do you think it will trickle down to sports message boards where we will have to let opposing teams have equal time on our board???
Also, the fairness doctrine, at this point, would only hurt the Dems, seeing as how most players in the MSM are left-leaning. I'm not sure how "slip[ping] the fairness doctrine by us" would help the democrats.
I'm afraid this is what government intervention would cause. Right now, there are no tolls to enter and there is competition among providers. Everyone has the freedom to offer a better service and win your business. If the government gets involved, competion will wain and you will see a monopolistic situation.
Generally speaking, I would agree with your sentiment. But not in this case. Net neutrality is a good thing. It protects consumers, and will ensure there are no tolls ever.
The government protects us against monopolies in other ways, so I don't see how this should ever be a concern with net neutrality.
I think it's a matter of trust. You obviously trust the government and think they make your life better. I think they complicate things in order to gain power over us.
Not necessarily. Our government is better than anyone at screwing up something. ("independent" investigations, taxes, social security, the budget)
This is just one of those times I'm actually surprised at the government. I've been hoping to see net neutrality for a long time.
By the way, the government has been regulating communication for over a century. If not for them, ma ball wouldn't be broken up, and we'd still have to buy the phones from the company. Without government, we'd have no rural land line phone service. (or at least not nearly as soon as we did get it)
Last edited by RustonNative; 08-27-2009 at 09:49 PM.
I don't understand the problem with internet access as it is. I have the choice of varying speeds of cable, dsl, satellite, or dialup. What are we regulating here?
Well, I don't want to stray too far from the topic of this thread (fairness doctrine). I simply raised a question to see if anyone thought net neutrality was being pushed because of the fairness doctrine.
It's probably moot anyway. The fairness doctrine was revoked.
If you have questions about net neutrality, and wonder why it's a goodthing, google also has a pretty good summary:
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
If you're really inclined, you can read Vint Cerf's full report
You can also read Tim Berners-Lee's blog. You may recognize that name. He's the guy who invented the internet. Here's his blog post on net neutrality, and why it is a good thing for you and me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
