FTC Abandons Net Neutrality
By Nicole Belle Thursday Jul 05, 2007 8:31amThis is bad, bad news for all of us...
vnunet.com: (h/t Scarecrow)
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.
The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue.
This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.
Information Week via Save The Internet:
The news story about the FTC report notes that "the FTC sided with high-speed Internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon," and trotted out once again hollow justifications like "such rules could stifle innovation" and ""This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more - not less - competition," which it probably didn't even think up itself, but copied from industry propaganda.[..]
Technological innovation in broadband access is a threat to corporate profits, and the FTC report comes down on the side not of the public interest but of the private interests.
As a government policy, this isn't working. Communication Workers of America union puts it this way:
Our reliance on market forces, deregulation, and inadequate governmental programs has not served us well. We invest relatively less on communications; we are charged more for slower speeds; millions encounter a significant digital divide based on income and geography, and unionized jobs with good wages and benefits are being replaced by low-wage jobs with less training and higher turnover.
Afraid of the potential stifling of information to you? Good. Then go to Save The Internet and see what you can do to fight. There are literally only days left for you to get your voice heard.
Login or Register to post comments.
So, the free market will again be used to deny access to information based on "economics".
If you're poor, middle class, divorced, kids in college, heavy debt...your fucked.
Sucks to be you say the elites.
in a couple of weeks, internet radio all but dies
what the ftc has done is to make sure that the rich stay rich and access to the net stays limited
woopee
what a great country we live in
This is very, VERY bad news!!! I'm surprised there are only two comments left so far. Is the number of comments representative of the number of people who know about this issue? Visit: http://www.freepress.net
Well, I just used the freepress thingy to email my representatives.
I'm sure that will be all it takes to keep the internet free!!! Right? :(
No surprise here. The rich right will just become more and more powerful. Now we will have the foxification of the internet as well.
marbotty @ 4:
Make a copy of that email and frame it. It may be the last "free speech" statement you make.
But our Democratic "leaders" will save us from this, right? Right?
Liberal AND Proud @ 6:
I was sort of thinking the same thing. Well, it was nice getting to talk with you guys while it lasted.
I'm confused. Didn't we win a battle in congress over this? How was that irrelevant?
This is absolutely terrible! Stifling dissent - powers that be have quickly realized the power of 'netroots'. This will put all but the media giants in the 'slow lane' and leave John Q. Public stuck with his aging tortoise. Very Very BAD news! I am not surprised though. I've tried to explain to all I know - the common 'bury my head in the sand' and hope for the best. We can never HOPE? for the best. That will always be denied the common man - the elite always and forever wake each day hoping the masses don't realize the game and come surging out angry about 'let em eat cake' which is the ruling class ethos for now and forever. But this - this is going too far. Damaging very severely our surest engine for change - the ability to COMMUNICATE!
The powers know this and HAVE BEEN VERY AFRAID of this populist tool. They won't take it away (too much money) but look for postage on emails, slower response and a coming CENSORSHIP! (Look at Google and Microsoft doing the bidding of Chinese Govt.)
'A little rebellion is healthy every now and then'
Thomas Jefferson
Make your voice heard? Please. There is not a damn thing any one of us could do that would make a difference. The country doesn't belong to us anymore.
McMike @ 9:
Yes and no is the short answer. It was brought up in Congress, but it never really went anywhere as a result of 'more pressing issues'. Or, parts were passed as amendments, but the bill as a whole was defeated. This was prior to the '06 elections. So, the Republican party had a vested interest to see that anything dealing with 'net neutrality got defeated.
This is a back handed way of the corps telling Congress to F*** Off (and the rest of us as well) and do as they want.
Call or write your Congressional Rep and Senators NOW! They are systematically trying to stifle all access to any information not disseminated by News Corp. This is happening at the same time internet radio is crippled by "market forces" and Murdoch is buying the WSJ and Dow Jones. C'mon people. There's a reason you were asked to read Orwell's 1984 in high school!
So now just like in radio, a few large companies will control the content of the entire spectrum. Leaving nothing for those of us who do not want the mega corporate viewpoint, all Paris all the time version of information.
Been nice knowing you all. Time to find a new hobby because I'm not paying for the "privilege" of reading nonstop ads on worthless sites owned and operated by the various media moguls. Thanks no.
And Neal is correct. You can 'raise your voice' as often and as loud as you like. Money is what wins these things. Not grassroots and not overwhelming strength in numbers. It makes no difference how many people disagree. I think the shrub government is an excellent example of that.
Are they allowed to pre-empt my phone call for somebody else's phone call?
OK,
Let's put this ruling into perspective.
This "net neutrality" is making lots of people upset and worried that the last bastion of truly free speech, the internet, is going to be somehow finished as we know it. If not finished, then "compromised" much like the mainstream media is accused of being, even as there are still many news networks that are apparently NOT "compromised", for example Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are staunch "democrats" and are constantly telling their viewers all the bad things GWB et al does. Although lots of the news on TV for example is crap, there is still truth going around. Seymour Hersh from The New Yorker is the best example of printed truth. As always, it is incumbent upon the viewer to discern truth from fiction. Most of you have done it, there is no reason others can't. Laziness on the part of many people is no excuse for ignorance. Since all the cable television networks that YOU like, such as the Comedy Network, MSNBC, etc, are ALL owned by "vicious", "evil businessmen", there is no reason NOT to expect the same on the internet.
As such, net neutrality is not something to be afraid of. Most people are concerned that the "little guy" will not get as high a speed as the "big guy", and hence "net equality" will not exist
anymore. Thus they advocate for legislation preventing the telecoms from price differentiation. What they want in a sense is to have their cake and eat it too.
What I mean by this is that they believe the internet to be a RIGHT to the citizenry, rather than a PRIVILEGE. To ask anything by right opens up a whole can of worms that makes the original argument contradictory. For example, an equivalent argument can be found in print. Would it make sense to force by law for all the different newspapers into charging the same price for their ad space? Should NYT charge the same price as the Jerkwater Times in Nebraska? Of course not. But this is what the net neutrality advocates want. It makes no sense does it?
Hence, allowing the telecoms to discriminate is NOT something evil or conspiratorial. It is a natural thing of the market. The telecoms are the ones who provide us with internet service and so it is THEY who should control it.
Now the repercussions:
Some websites will be very slow. But, if the website is popular like Crooks and Liars, then there is nothing to worry about, because the telecoms would give priority to Crooks and Liars over say, Rightwingnews.com.
You may not trust these events, you may not think that the market will be efficient and we will all see the internet turn into nothing but another propaganda piece for the corporate controlled Congress. You may think that I am just being a talking head for them and do not know what I am really advocating for, because the actual result will be different than the desired result. But this is what I think:
The truth is ALWAYS out there. It has NEVER vanished, nor disappeared from us. Even before the war started, there were MANY people on TV, print, internet, word of mouth etc, who all said this is wrong, that something is just not right. Remember Michael Moore at the Academy Awards?
The truth is there for us everybody, it is up to us to find it. If there are too many lazy asses in this country who blindly follow Fox or CNN, then who's fault is that really? We need to start taking responsibility for ourselves. We need to be free.
NOT something that is threatening to free speech.
Liberal AND Proud @ 1:
That is pretty much the attitude of the few repugs I know personally. They see anything that hinders the public as a "win" and they live under this bizarre notion that anything for the public good is merely another attempt for "the masses" to try and "steal" their money from them.
I've always said the repug mantra is "I've come into some money and no longer have to care."
Bad enough that the American health system is only for those who can pay for insurance; everyone else just lives with their illnesses... or dies. Are we now going to start charging people at lending libraries depending on the number of pages in the books? How about the police responding more quickly to calls only from those who have signed up to a pre-paid protection service? Are grocery stores going to open up premium rate check-out lines, where you have to pay more for your fruit and veg if you want to get it home in time to cook for dinner? Are schools only going to allow certain students access to desks and books and teachers depending on a sliding scale of availability? Will we have to pay extra if we want to be able to fill a glass with water more quickly than someone who can afford a 'high-speed tap'? How about voters? Will we get to vote for certain candidates only if we've first paid a premium to receive a ballot in time?
Then again, maybe I shouldn't be giving anyone any ideas...
FTC: Fascist Trade Conglomerate. The rich get richer and now they can completely stifle the information super highway. Looks like it back to letters, bugged phone calls and diaries for information dissemination. Oh Yay!
Hey number 17, if you believe this shit, "Some websites will be very slow. But, if the website is popular like Crooks and Liars, then there is nothing to worry about, because the telecoms would give priority to Crooks and Liars over say, Rightwingnews.com." you are crazy. The right wing shows with extrememly low ratings still hold the best time slots on TV. The people who own this shit will run how THEY want it done. I'm so sorry for you Number 17, you are so full of crap.....
This should simply be considered an affront to our first amendment rights to free and unfettered speech. What the telecoms don't say, and no one I've read reports on this subject, is that they are already charging companies and people for their internet access and speeds. Businesses can opt for anything from a small partial T1 line to larger fatter lines with more speed, which allows their information to be accessed more quickly. These companies are outright lying on this subject. Companies already pay for access, if the Telecoms can't make money at it, maybe they need to decrease their overhead instead?
I don't understand how the telcoms can justify charging more money. Companies already pay for thier bandwidth, so how can ATT or Verizon say they have to pay more to get into people's homes. What was it they paid for in the first place then?
Private Freedom @ 17:
If you were a corporate Verizon goon and you wanted to make money, would you try to
a) squeeze the hundreds of visitors to Rightwingnews.com
or
b) squeeze the hundreds of thousands of visitors to CrooksandLiars.com ?
I'd go for option B. The high-traffic sites have a lot more to lose if they're being put on the slow
lane and hence they are the first targets.
Private Freedom @ 17:
The New York Times charging advertisers more for space than the Gillyup Idaho Tribune is one thing - charging readers for getting a paper in the morning instead of maybe three days late is quite another.
When I pay a service provider, I have a right to the product I've paid for. I shouldn't have to pay more on top of that to get it any sooner. I pay for an apple in a store; I shouldn't have to pay more to have a faster check-out line. I pay taxes for public services; I shouldn't have to pay more to have the police show up any faster on a 911 call. I pay for water; I shouldn't have to pay more to have it come out the tap any faster. As a customer, I do have and should expect statutory rights - I've paid for them already.
Your free market argument just doesn't hold water. Fast or slow.
nonny mouse @ 19:
The corporate zombies that own this country would love every one of those ideas. The Republic is dead. Capitalist Fascism hides under the facade of our Democracy.
The only thing that can save this country is revolution, but people are either stretched to their limits with everyday survival, or too mesmerized by their iPhones to do anything about it.
Private Freedom @ 17:
I worked for a telecom in 2000 when WorldCom, Enron, and others happened. I no longer work for a telecom because the industry collapsed from the inside out.
I don't trust telecoms any further than I can throw them.
Neal @ 26: blockquote>
The corporate zombies that own this country would love every one of those ideas. The Republic is dead. Capitalist Fascism hides under the facade of our Democracy.
The only thing that can save this country is revolution, but people are either stretched to their limits with everyday survival, or too mesmerized by their iPhones to do anything about it.
Get your Visa now, and avoid the Christmas rush.
Liberal AND Proud @ 28:
Get your Visa now, and avoid the Christmas rush.
You actually raise a good point. I wonder if it is in the interest of companies like Apple or Blackberry that the internet isn't equally accessible. Don't their gadgets become less attractive if they become less reliable with regard to speed and access?
So, what else is new.
PurplePatriot @ 29:
You actually raise a good point. I wonder if it is in the interest of companies like Apple or Blackberry that the internet isn't equally accessible. Don't their gadgets become less attractive if they become less reliable with regard to speed and access?
To be fair, it wasn't my point. It was neal's.
My point is...leave. The argument about running out on America is moot. The country ran out on us, a long time ago.
fwacbar @ 21:
So what you are saying is that they would sacrifice profits over ideology? I thought they were "profit seeking" bastards? Which is it? If what you say is true, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the advertisers would pay those "popular stations", and hence leave the "right wing" stations in the dust? That wouldn't be like the right wing now would it?
If they make us so poor that we cannot buy their products, (Gasoline, Electricity, prescriptions, milk, whatever) then they are just hurting themselves and the supposed American way of life.
It is very fitting that our leader's name is George. So was the last one who lost this country...
C'mon, let's be real. All of the covert stuff our government did was behind closed doors, where the weasels ran free. Now, with the advent of the internet, a level of transparency has been painted on our government. So they are working feverishly to put the Genie back in the bottle.
Unfortunately, that will prove quite difficult since they have been exposed as a bunch of lying greedy power trippers. This will not pan out the way they think. This is end game for them.
nonny mouse @ 25:
It DOES hold water, because your whole argument does not contradict anythign I said. The way the market works is that business charges their customers as high a price as is possible, at the same time not too high as to lose their solicitation to other companies. This is the way it has worked since the dawn of business. There is no such thing as a "fair price" (except in communist countries). In a free market, prices are determined by what people will pay, no more no less. It is therefore not a question of "allowing companies to charge way too high a price". Prices lower or rise based on demand. If they charge TOO high a price, they lose profits by losing customers.
My argument is not my own, it is like more than 250 years old.
Um, yes it would. Have you looked at the ratings for Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson? Non-existent. And Beck keeps getting new gigs. The one cable news show with GROWING ratings is Olbermann. See a flood of more left-oriented slant news shows coming up?
Your free market sounds good in theory. Does not work (and never has) in practice.
At some point, US citizens are going to have to declare war on the corporations that are out to rob and silence us.
The Corporate CEO Watch database on the AFL-CIO website shows how much CEOs make each year. For 2006:
Comcast: Brian L. Roberts, CEO: $27,858,900 in total 2006 compensation
Verizon: Ivan G. Seidenberg, CEO: $21,309,218 in total 2006 compensation
AT&T: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., CEO: $36,026,876 in total 2006 compensation
These companies know that the internet is the very last pipeline of communication that the little people have access to. They're going to privatize something that WE built!
CEO greed, republican hatred for free speech, and the desire of corporations to own and run the world are now realities.
It is glaringly apparent to me that Americans in general don't care about anything except who's got television talent.
However, if you're a parent and you love your children, you better start focusing on their future welfare: it will only get worse if you do nothing.
[...] Link to Article verizon FTC Abandons Net Neutrality » Posted at Crooks and Liars on Friday, [...]
Nicole Belle @ 36:
I don't believe that Carlson or Beck have non-existent ratings. If they did, wouldn't it be logical to see their advertisers get the hell out and thus prevent them from getting the required funding and thus get cancelled?
If what you said is true, then of course your conspiracy theories would be valid. But I find it hard to believe you would know offhand the numbers of viewers for such shows. How much time do you have anyway? You would LIKE them to have no viewers, but they have enough to justify being on TV.
So what are you gonna do about it?
and here I thought the internet was America's saving grace. Back to the dark-ages people. Our masters want a stupid public and we are more than willing to obey.
Goody! We are one step closer to the revolution. Every time the government comes out on the side of corporations over the people I just grin. One step closer..one step closer :)
I feel this malaise after so many years of passionately pushing back against this slow suffocation. Will another goddamn flurry of emails make any difference.
17 get off. It's like the dead telling the living being the perfect parasite to the perfect host ain't so bad. So unnatural, so perverse.
When do we get to declare war on the Bush administration?
My argument is not my own, it is like more than 250 years old
Wow that's almost as old as the internet, then.
sure was fun while it lasted.
PSoul @ 41:
What % of Americans would know who the following are:
a) Anna Nicole Smith
b) Britney Spears
c) Daniel Perl
What % of Americans would know what the following are:
a) Moussad
b) Starbucks
c) Sanjaya
What % of Americans are doing the following in response to high gas prices:
a) Driving more fuel effecient vehicles
b) Nothing
c) Starting a grass roots movement to boycott big oil
If you think a revolution is coming, you think a great deal more highly of the American populace than do I.
In a free market, prices are determined by what people will pay, no more no less...
That's true of extortion as well. And kidnapping. And blackmail. And in certain respects anarchy. The free market is not a good thing. Because it doesn't take into account (a) what people can pay, and (b) that not everything should come with a price tag attached. Social responsibility (not to be confused with - or deliberately smeared as - communism) is something that isn't factored into your free market philosophy - and social responsibility is something that's been all too sadly lacking from far too many of your business decision makers. 250 years of robber baron greed, corruption and inequity are proof of that.
Private Freedom, I know you read "Atlas Shrugged" a year ago and you're still quivering with delight on the concept of free market, but please, don't challenge me on my business. This is what this site does--look at the media.
Here's a sample PDF of Cable News Ratings. As I said, Tucker and Beck are tiny, tiny fractions of their competitors, a ridiculously small marketshare. If you saw the ratings I was emailed just last month (unfortunately not available as a URL) this is what they showed as their marketshare: "---". That means that it's less than 1%.
AND Tucker's and Beck's ratings have dropped from this point last year.
AND Beck has gotten two new gigs (ABC Radio and GMA) while plummeting.
Seriously, you're way out of your league.
Anyone not enthralled with with the utopian but impractical concept of Objectivism can see that this is a bad thing for the consumers and will be yet another death knell to our democracy, because the deep pockets (of which, sadly, C&L is not) will be able to control the flow of information. You should be ashamed of your blinders.
Once again it is the Corporations and the Government (correctly labeled Fascism by Mussolini) against the People.
Time for resistance. An uncensored and wide open Internet is the only hope for democracy. Once the Fascists have control, it's over for the rest of us.
I use a pay as you go T-Mobil cell. I'd never use Verizon , ATT or any of the others that are spying on us.
MORE TUBES!!!!!
Nicole Belle @ 48:
Wow. That was great, Nicole.
Will you bear my baby?! ;)
Oh, Private Freedom! You so make me laugh. A+ troll.
Magic 8 ball says: Try again later.
Liberal AND Proud @ 52:
So excellent, it deserves a threepeat!
"Some websites will be very slow. But, if the website is popular like Crooks and Liars, then there is nothing to worry about, because the telecoms would give priority to Crooks and Liars over say, Rightwingnews.com."
In an altruistic society, yeah that would be correct. But, that's not how it will work.
"The way the market works is that business charges their customers as high a price as is possible, at the same time not too high as to lose their solicitation to other companies."
Except when they're a monopoly. Then they'll charge through the nose. Do you realize how monopolized they are in many areas? I have 2 choices in my area and I'm in one of the largest metro areas in my State (approx 180k pop). The choices are DSL or Broadband, one company has one and the other company the other.
Many of the telecom companies have promoted 'telecommuting' and then bought out their competition. Now, the person who telecommutes instead of moving cross country to the physical location is going to get screwed because they will a) have to fork over a huge amount of money to stay connected to work, b) move cross country, or c) lose their job.
"You actually raise a good point. I wonder if it is in the interest of companies like Apple or Blackberry that the internet isn’t equally accessible. Don’t their gadgets become less attractive if they become less reliable with regard to speed and access?"
Yes, it would be in their interest to have a tiered internet. The reason, money. Apple has a contract with ATT. ATT controls part of the internet backbone. MCI/Worldcom controls a huge amount of the backbone. ATT would be able to know how the 'net is be accessed. If accessed by a partner company (Apple), they would get preferential treatment over some other source.
This is about money and control of information. ATT and many other telecom companies didn't invest in proper hardware at the beginning, or as time has gone by thinking the internet would be of limited use, and now want us to pay for their upgrades, up front. Japan is downloading at a rate of something like 60mbs whereas here Mediacom is saying that a download rate of 10mbs is an outstanding deal. Cable companies and telephone companies are duking it out and we're expected to pay for it.
Liberal AND Proud @ 52:
Did you not hear of yesterday's announcement that Haliburton now owns all wombs. This abandonment of the Womb Neutrality Act doesn't mean you can't have a baby together, only that if a wealthier man wants access to said womb, you'll have to get in line.
PurplePatriot @ 56:
Thanks for the opportunity, Ms Belle. I've sent the FCC my perspective and forwarded the information to friends with 501 Animal Rescue organizations that survive on pennies and their own pocketbooks. How will they be able to manage the 'gatekeeper ransoms' of the corporate ogres lurking under access bridges?
PurplePatriot @ 47:
I knew everyone in the first question, but I had to Google Sanjaya, I'm absurdly pleased to say. Never heard of him before. As for high gas prices, can't afford a more fuel efficient vehicle just yet, so I'm walking more and driving less to compensate. I wonder how possible it would even be to boycott big oil - is there any such thing as small oil?
Nicky B - Ayn Rand! Of course! (Smacks self on forehead). I feel stupid not spotting that sooner myself. Y'know, I read Rand when I was about 12 or 13, thought it was pretty hot stuff then... although I do remember being vaguely disturbed by her 'the strong should prevail; the weak deserve to die' undercurrent; I had acute asthma and had several very close brushes with death before I was 12 - learned to read at three because there wasn't much else to do when you're hooked up to hospital IVs and an oxygen mask back in the 1950's. Medicine has improved since then and so have I, and I think I've turned out to be of some vague value to society in general despite my 'weakness'.
But to paraphrase another writer: If you've read Rand at 13 and don't think her stuff is interesting, there's something wrong with you. If you still think her stuff is interesting at 30, however, there's something wrong with you.
PurplePatriot @ 47:
like I said "one step closer"
and now they are hitting something that is just a precious as Anna Nicole and Sanjaya or American Idol, etc. This will piss people in mass.
Of course they did!
Had to do it now or never, the elections are coming up.
Gotta shut down those sites that offend our betters. Or at least slow them down until they are unusable.
Can't have the little people getting all riled up and voting the wrong way now could we?
For all you Angelino's unaware - Daniel Perl was one of our own, and a valley boy - as is Greg Palast.
For those with a thought bubble containing popular revolt, here's the final paragraph and salutation of my FCC contact regarding the inter-tubes:
"
Should the FCC pursue the route of granting further imperial entitlements to corporate entities, I predict endless injunctions and court battles extending over decades, gross degeneration of the internet overall, and an outraged citizenry that is already eyeing examples of how citizens in genuinely democratic societies address unjust, unpopular, and above all illegal actions by misguided, or outright malevolent, government officials.
Consider well, bureaucrats.
"
"Private Freedom, I know you read "Atlas Shrugged" a year ago and you're still quivering with delight on the concept of free market, but please, don't challenge me on my business. This is what this site does--look at the media."
Fair enough.
"As I said, Tucker and Beck are tiny, tiny fractions of their competitors, a ridiculously small marketshare."
Yes, you are right, they DO have miniscule ratings. But thankfully even the tiny and fractional aspects of market share ARE able to be in existence. This principle is the reason we are able to enjoy a wide range of services rather than ONLY the ones from big producers. You are always clamouring that big business is "taking over", but then when a tiny fractional market share sees the light of day you say that it SHOULD'T be allowed to go on BECAUSE it is so small. Don't you see the error in the logic here? You can't have it both ways. I agree wholeheartedly that Tucker and Beck are on to a large extent because their boss agrees with their views. But the boss always has final say anyways. It is they who are risking their financial interests by putting on people who don't gain viewership. Where I become agitated is when they receive either subsidies from government or get special treatment from government. In the case of Murdoch, he does get special treatment (he's buddy buddies with the government). It is for this reason that I abhor him and everything he represents. But my economic rational still holds. It is thus not a question of me sitting down because what I think is unrealistic. It is a question of me standing up and telling these people that what I say is realistic and what they are doing is both ruining the country AND hurting themselves in the long run. If I can convince them that they are hurting themselves, I stand a chance.
"Seriously, you're way out of your league."
I agree with you here, but only insofar as knowledge of data and statistics. It is good you are keeping up with them, I approach things from a slightly different angle, that is, from a principled perspective. I therefore am subject to ridicule and debate, because I am an apparently easy target due to the fact that I am saying what I am saying, and not REPORTING it, whereby nobody can mess with me because well, data is data. In the long run though, I win. I lose everyday arguments, but hopefully I can make people realize what the ultimate consequences of their thoughts and actions are.
"Anyone not enthralled with with the utopian but impractical concept of Objectivism can see that this is a bad thing for the consumers and will be yet another death knell to our democracy, because the deep pockets (of which, sadly, C&L is not) will be able to control the flow of information. You should be ashamed of your blinders."
I totally understand how your site may be hurt by this decision. But if you continue to do what you are doing, instead of trying to gain more readers, then the risk is yours. If you start to do what is in the best interests of ALL readers, that is, talking about truth in its objectivity, rather than particular political ideology a la John Amato's philosphy, then you have everything to lose. But I will tell you this, if you ONLY focus on propping up democrats, and democratic posters, then you run the risk of losing readership once the internet is completely privatized.
You have said VERY clearly over the years that this is YOUR website, whereby YOUR views are what is going to be spread. YOU will not tolerate dissent, namely conspiracies, right wing support, etc... It is YOUR ideology that is the ultimate determinant in what is covered on Crooks and Liars. YOU run the risk of operating this way when the internet becomes more privatized. In this way, i.e. one-sided political views, YOU are no different than Fox, CNN, or any other POLITICALLY motivated news media. If you play by their rules, then be prepared to die by their sword. What I mean by this is if you want to support only democrats, then you have every right to, but if yuo don't gain enough money because you focus too much on only democratic support, then you are ignoring a huge chunk of the population. You should see the average age of Ron Paul supporters. They are super young. Talk about freedom and liberty and maybe you can gain their attention as well.
If I have a suggestion for you, you should EXPAND your blog to include posts about ALL things political, rather than just democratic support. If a right-wing politician should happen to say something true and valid, post it and support it. If a businessman says something in public that is true and valid, post it and support it. If you ignore these things, then you are just as much a "suppresser" of information as the next group of people.
If you continue to run things the way you are running them, then you run the risk of not being able to get enough internet speed due to too small of a readership crowd (die hard democrat supporters). It is your choice. You must make your own destiny.
Horst, it's knowing what lies ahead. The slow fallout, the contamination in the sand and the air. Once these corporations get a grip on something it's doubtful we can get it back. What a huge mountain of a task.
It has to be before-the-fact or it's over.
What about all that energy we put out last year. I suspect it was shelved because the corps knew they couldn't get their way through the senate.
These scumbags batter the castle door every year, like the Alaska Refuge drilling they are fucking relentless until one day on a breeze they're all over it like flies on shit.
This is one of those moments to batter the heads of the short attention spanning congress to WAKE THE HELL UP!
Or do I have this dismally incorrect.
Private Freedom, it is YOU who wants things both ways. YOU said that I must be wrong about the ratings, otherwise Beck or Tucker wouldn't have a job.
I proved to you OBJECTIVELY that YOU were wrong. You then dismiss that out of hand.
The issue isn't to be OBJECTIVE. The issue is to be fair. The lone nut with every tin-foil hat theory on the planet has just as much right to be read on the internets as we do and as CNN.com does. If Net Neutrality is abolished, he won't. And it will be harder to find us. But I promise you, you'll find FoxNews.com VERY easily. How's that for objective coverage?
You're framing this issue from a completely tangential and irrelevant point of view.
And for what it's worth, this is not MY site. Look at the name on the top of the page. Just like the editor of Time Magazine, Mother Jones, WaPo, etc. etc., he has the right to dictate the content of his blog. How very non-Randian of you to want to control that.
Okayheyguesswhat. C&L can look out for C&L. How about, oh say, everyone else out there who has a website that isn't just some MySpacebook vomit?
Once again the Liberal Chicken Little’s are running around claiming the sky is falling. Relax, smoke some more reefer, and stop over reacting to every little thing. It’s annoying.
"Private Freedom, it is YOU who wants things both ways. YOU said that I must be wrong about the ratings, otherwise Beck or Tucker wouldn’t have a job."
No, you said their viewership is NON-EXISTENT. There's a big difference between low and non-existence. If it were zero, then they would not be on. Even Murdoch realizes that any positive dollars and against his ideology is better than zero dollars and for his ideology.
"I proved to you OBJECTIVELY that YOU were wrong. You then dismiss that out of hand."
I only dismissed your "non-existent" comment. That is simply not true. I consider your comments very carefully as it is deserved.
"The issue isn’t to be OBJECTIVE. The issue is to be fair."
You have every right in the world to think this, believe this, and live by it. I only ask that you live with and accept the consequences of it. That's it really.
"The lone nut with every tin-foil hat theory on the planet has just as much right to be read on the internets as we do and as CNN.com does."
No they don't. I said it already, the internet is not a right, it is a privilege of service provided to us in exchange for our dollars.
"If Net Neutrality is abolished, he won’t."
He doesn't have a right to come into your house or place of business and spew his theories does he? Why does he have a right to do that with the telecoms?
"And it will be harder to find us."
If you post good things, the people will come. If you post garbage, people will go. If you believe in yourself, if you are confident and try hard, you will still be around once privatization comes. Just try to post things to as wide a group as possible, just like every other business tries to sell to as many people as it profitably can as well.
"But I promise you, you’ll find FoxNews.com VERY easily. How’s that for objective coverage?"
That may be true, but Fox does still have a high number of viewers (unfortunately). So there is still market checks in place. If these market checks remain, then they will be only as fast as the number of viewers. If they are faster, at low numbers, then they are sacrificing profits, and people will wait the few extra minutes to come visit you guys. Crooks and Liars posters are very loyal, so don't worry. Keep them happy, and keep more people happy that may not have the same ideology as C&L and you will be able to challenge the bigger guys.
"You’re framing this issue from a completely tangential and irrelevant point of view."
I am only thinking of how to continue C&L. You guys provide a more valuable service to this country than you perhaps realize (especially what with people like me who only focus on ideas and not by support of politics that can be offensive). Trust me, I WANT C&L to stay. I love coming here and reading up on what our government is up to. You are valuable today because our government is predominantly right-wing and since you are left-wing, you show the bad things they do. I am afraid that once the dems come into power (if they do), then you won't be as hard on them, as you should be (but aren't).
"And for what it’s worth, this is not MY site. Look at the name on the top of the page. Just like the editor of Time Magazine, Mother Jones, WaPo, etc. etc., he has the right to dictate the content of his blog. How very non-Randian of you to want to control that."
I DON'T want to control your site, nor force you. I am only talking about it. I am just saying that if you believe in the ideology of this site, then face the consequences.
Nichole, it's like having a conversation in a hurricane. Too much energy which is better saved for no more than the time of day. Certain 'types' have a different sort of thickened soul that can't be penetrated.
don't let him eat you.
bentmaTricks Says:
". . . Once these corporations get a grip on something it’s doubtful we can get it back. What a huge mountain of a task.
It has to be before-the-fact or it’s over. . . "
Right you are, Tricks! And that is why I focussed my comments to motivate my 501 friends as follows:
"THE ACTION THE FCC PROPOSES WILL HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT ON 501 ORGANIZATIONS IN THAT, UNLESS THEY ARE VERY WELL FUNDED AND CAN ‘PAYOFF THE RANSOM' OF THE CORPORATE GATE KEEPERS, THEY WILL NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT EXTREME DIFFICULTY. I'VE OFFERED MY PERSPECTIVE, PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO SUBMIT YOURS. THE CHANGES THEY PROPOSE, ONCE ENACTED, WILL BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REVOKE AND CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY. TIME NOW OR AN ETERNITY OF REGRET, TO PARAPHRASE POPULAR PHILOSOPHY. THANKS, "
As I re-read this I notice I've left too many ambiguous antecedents, dolt that I often am. Nevertheless, I believe the message and the urgency are communicated.
Thanks for noticing bentmaTricks.
Private Freedom, do I need to reduce my language to monosyllables?
Less than 1% marketshare IS non-existent ratings. Or are you such a literalist that you thought that I meant ZERO viewers? I'm sorry, my little free market fiend, that just shows how outgunned you are in this discussion.
And Free Speech is a right, not a privilege. Again, for you to base your discussion on that shows how patently absurd it is. The telecoms have no right to dictate tiers of speech. None whatsoever. Go back to NonnyMouse's analogy of paying for faster water after paying your utilities. Your argument falls apart.
if you continue to do what you are doing, instead of trying to gain more readers, then the risk is yours. If you start to do what is in the best interests of ALL readers, that is, talking about truth in its objectivity, rather than particular political ideology a la John Amato’s philosphy, then you have everything to lose. But I will tell you this, if you ONLY focus on propping up democrats, and democratic posters, then you run the risk of losing readership once the internet is completely privatized...
Goodness, Private Freedom, you are one pompous windbag, aren't you? This blog has the widest, most diverse readership of just about any other leftwing blog, and sure as hell any rightwing one. And the little ticker thingie at the bottom is nearing 160 million hits. Don't think C&L is running much risk of alienating all that many readers.
But I do love that tagline, 'You must make your own destiny.' Wow. Profound.