There is a difference between providing equal time and demanding something be removed from the air BEFORE its even shown. Can you not see that? No one has a problem with Jay Leno putting Cheney on one night; then Kerry on the next night. It's common sense. But denying either the right to appear at all (lest either be offended) - that is the policy you are advocating. Wake up man. Yes. We know the FCC is under whose control But, it is the Democrats making the threat (even if its hollow and never happens). But that misses the point. If they had the power, WOULD they petition the FCC to do it? Based on current evidence, you'd have to answer YES, wouldn't you? How about the senator(s) themselves http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624& As I said (not so) veiled threats. From a Senator of the United States. Directly on the free speech of a television station. Edits being necessary are not even the point. Factual errors are there, no one disputes. but it is NOT the responsibility of the government to do it, threaten it or anything of the sort.
Addition to previous post: More "non bloggers" calling for FCC's license: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/governor_dean_t_1.php Howard Dean: (DNC chairman) Meanwhile, NYT (new york times, mind you, not fox news) says its evenhanded (and the Bush supporters should be up in arms, not democrats): http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003118768 EDITTING (again) http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8454.shtml
Curious,...how exactly are these airways considered 'public'? The just are? TV and movies confuses me a bit. There's all this regulation on them. I know they're a bit different, but generally they both have regulation agencies in the background. Say a satelitte tv channel showed something like this, would there be a lawful arguement against them? I'm a bit weary that the media, which is mostly ran under 'public' stations, are under public regulation. I'm not not anarchists, but I don't think media should be within a publically regulated asset...and under a political form of scrutiny. Obviously most of these companies are privately owned, but the idea that they have to live in a PC enviroment scares me a bit.... Would it make a difference if it was on Satelitte? I hear there's no regulations on that...yet. Or god forbid the internet. Generally speaking the level of venues we had in the 60's, as far as media goes, ...was fairly restricted. Practically, what you say makes sense, but it's not remotely idealistic in terms of free-speech...or atleast that's how it appears. In an attempt to keep things open, they regulate the standards of what 'is' and 'isn't' acceptable...thus they impose standards, while in general terms they're trying to keep them open. It's a scary concept of what free-speech is. I'd say (even though it's somewhat practical) it's equally unpractical for it's goal...especially in our current times. Now I'm not disagreeing with you on the FCC authority and such. I'm not really that familiar with it, but it sounds like a very old system and policy (based on the limitations of media of that time). Private industy has the means and capibility to now seek their audience through multiple means, which is only restricted by capital. I'm wondering if you believe those venues should be regulate as well....? I understand the general historical context of your thoughts, I just think it's not really an idealistic (or pratical) position to regulate what's 'acceptable' in the media...generally. The whole idea of limited scope in media disguists me, but the whole idea of a limited publically regulated industry scares the shit out of me....perhaps that's why we are where we're at.... I have to research this a bit more.
Here are the clips that have the democrats crying: http://www.redstate.com/911clips (no guarantee on how long these stay on the site)
NOTE: I've been researching and editing this post since Lorien1973 made his post below. I will reply to posts made after the post being replied to in subsequent posts as this post is already way too long. If something is factually flawed, politically motivated and timed to influence an election (as this miniseries is) FCC should review the events and consider fining the network or pull their licenses. If factual errors are known (and apparently they are given that it is members of the 9/11 Commission who saw the movie that are included amongst those complaining about the movie); it is only appropriate to voice those concerns BEFORE the movie airs so that those issues can be addressed BEFORE it is aired. If the movie was politically motivated BUT FACTUALLY CORRECT, I would agree with your concern. IF, HOWEVER, there are KNOWN and DOCUMENTED factual errors and distortions of events, then those affected have every right to demand that the errors be corrected BEFORE the movie is released. No I'm advocating that a politically motivated dramatization with documented factual errors should not be shown when those factual errors could have a significant influence on the political discourse of this country just before an election. Especially when it is highly unlikely that ABC would be showing a comparable docudrama prior to the election that might look at the other side of said issues. Absolutely and they should if there are factual errors in the movie. The Republicans would do no different if the roles were reversed. You know damn well this is true. Oh, wait, CBS pulled the Regans because of concerns of upsetting Republicans (who controlled the FCC) at a critical juncture. Gee and we thought only the Democrats used such sticks and veiled threats. Now we are getting somewhere. Again like the Republicans wouldn't do the same thing if their rolls were reversed you know this is true, don't deny it. It's called politics, its dirty, it's nasty and I hate it, which is why I firmly believe that no single party should control the Presidency and Congress. Heck If I had my ideal government there would be three equally powerful political parties and voters would make sure that the Presidency, the House and the Senate was controlled by a different party but by only the slimmest majority -- but digress. In a way, the FCC acts as a check and balance with the TV networks (especially with politically charged issues like this) and the courts (Supreme Court in particular) acts as the final arbiter of that balance. The press/news media watch the government and the FCC ensures that the broadcast networks don't abuse their responsibilities to the public trust. The courts sort out the ensuing mess when the FCC steps in and the press complains that they overstepped their legal bounds. The system isn't perfect but it is a heck of a lot better than most countries. Now in regards to that Democratic letter you pointed out. In your quoting sections of that letter you failed to quote and glossed over some important points. In particular you have glossed over the reported errors as nothing major. People should read the entire letter, however here is the core of it: Further reports on the errors: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?ex=1157688000&en=2d14938386d6b51c&ei=5087 Remember that Richard Clark has been a critic of everyone for not listening to him more about the threat bin Laden posed. Also remember that Richard Clark is now an ABC consultant. Again from the same NYT article: Richard Ben-Veniste is a member of the Sept. 11 commission. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800222.html http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html This is no minor error especially if the real reason for warning the Pakistanis (which was to prevent an accidental war between Pakistan and India) was not made clear in the movie. Somehow, it seems that preventing an inadvertent war is kind of important and to paint such an act as an obstructionist move (especially when attributed to the wrong person) is a very disingenuous and politically motivated. Is "Path to 9/11" a historically based docudrama without a political agenda? No it is not. It is completely politically motivated, not unlike MM's F911 the differences being that MM did not try to hide hide his political agenda and he didn't try to pass his documentary off on network TV as an objective look at the events that took place. Let's look at who the producers of the movie is and what their background is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060907/cm_huffpost/028891 http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060909/cm_huffpost/029015 See above article for following notes: David Cunningham as the film's director is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM) (http://www.ywam.org/contents/abo_wha_founder.htm) The screen play was written and co-produced by Cyrus Nowrasteh an Iranian-American screenwriter. Again the above mentioned article: AND There is much more to the above article that should be read. Is "Path to 9/11" a historical docudrama about real events? No it is a partisan movie as much as MM's F911 was minus the care MM put into factual accuracy. Michael Moore's movie did not belong on Network TV in the months leading up to the Presidential election without the conservatives having an equal opportunity to present their point of view on the issues raised. Likewise this partisan and fictionalized "docudrama" does not belong on network TV. Two days ago I simply saw "Path to 9/11" as just another stupid made for TV movie that I would simply avoid. After researching this issue today for this discussion I have come to the conclusion that without a doubt this movie is nothing more than a partisan effort to sway this fall's election. Without any shadow of a doubt ABC's showing of this movie would be a violation of its public trust under the Communications Act of 1934 and if they do show it there should be an FCC inquiry with potential sanctions.
Let's look back at history then. Shall we? The Reagans mini series that you keep bringing up. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA334711.html This is important. If the Republicans HAD threatened their license, don't you think it would have made into the story? Just people "question it". Continuing.... Again. I'll ask. If the democrats were in charge, and had their guy in the FCC ... would he have said "absolutely not" to this? More likely, he'd say - lemme give them a call. The only real republican complaining (on capital hill) was Cantor. Everything else was grass roots. Certainly no long series of Republican Senators writing a letter threatening action against CBS' FCC license. See how the democrats behave different, in a somewhat fascist style? Can you see the difference? Covered in the first clip on the link above your post. You are quoting the huffington post? The huffingtonpost? And I was told I was quoting a political hack site in another thread. heh. Huffpost has no credibility. This is from what you quoted from HuffPo. The New york times (hardly a conservative or bush supporting paper) also reviewed it. Said it was pretty balanced. Quite the contrary actually. Huffingtonpost. First, its an opinion site, not a news site. Second, the opinions are laughable. Again. Perhaps you and I come from two different perspectives. I do not see a problem with F911 going on a channel anytime it wants to go on. I simply wouldn't watch it. I don't care if ABC/NBC or whatever puts it on. Its not a big deal to me. I do see a problem with government intervention in free speech - trying to make it stop before it happens is the worst type of censorship and leads to a chilling effect. I am sad for you, if you do not see it. Here are the links to the clips democrats are crying about again; just in case it was missed: http://www.redstate.com/911clips EDITING: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/...aten-abcs-broadcast-license-over-path-to-911/ Reminds us of the 2004 elections when Kerry threatened the FCC licence of Sinclair broadcasting... So, it becomes a pattern. If you don't like - complain about it. If you REALLY don't like it - stomp on their first amendment rights.
See http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/ in regards to radio spectrums. The radio spectrum is the section of the electromagnetic spectrum that is suitable for the transmission of radio (RF) signals. This radio spectrum is of finite size and it must be split up into smaller sections and shared in an organized fashion between all kinds of competing interests. For this reason the radio spectrum is considered public property. In the United States the Federal Communications Commission was set up to manage the RF spectrum and share it between all of the competing interests. For instance certain sections of the radio spectrum are set aside for TV, radio, cell phones, ham radios, satellite communications, etc. Because the overall radio spectrum is very limited not everyone can broadcast their own TV channel. When entities are granted the rights to use specific sections of the radio spectrum for their TV station there are also expectations placed on the privilege of getting exclusive use of said spectrum. These expectations revolve around serving the "public trust". This means that the station is required to provide a specified amount of educational programming for children, keep the public informed on local events/news, etc. This requirement also requires open and EQUAL access to differing political views. In exchange said entities get free access to their assigned section of the radio spectrum. The idea was to encourage the spread of TV throughout the country and insure a means of keeping a community informed and try to encourage multiple TV stations in every market to provide as diversified access to information as possible. From my understanding, the section of the radio spectrum reserved for satellite transmissions on the other hand is different in that it is auctioned off to the highest bidder and thus is treated differently from broadcast TV. Also due to digitalization of the signal, satellite TV can pack many more channels into a limited section of the radio frequency. Cable TV is very different in that it is transmitted over copper wires and/or fiber optic cables and thus is not limited to the finite limitations of the radio spectrum. Basically because cable TV signals are transmitted over private cable networks they are not regulated by the FCC at all except in that how much RF bleeding/leakage that is allowed to escape from the cables themselves. From the FCC public trust standpoint there would be no lawful argument against them. Of course libel and slander laws would still apply. This is why cable/satellite TV networks like FOX News are able to exist. The balance comes in that there can be so many channels on satellite/cable TV that instead of a limited number of channels needing to serve all public interests, a separate channel can be dedicated to each interest and in theory people can pick and choose which channels they subscribe to and/or watch. To an extent it should but this day in age this concern is being negated because of the diversity of ways that differing views can be disseminated, e.g. hundreds of cable/satellite TV channels and the Internet (as long as network neutrality regulations are enacted). As I said above, yes satellite and cable TV are completely different issues and are not regulated nor should they be regulated in the same fashion as broadcast TV. If I subscribe to satellite TV I can choose from hundreds of channels and find the channels that serve my interests. If I only had access broadcast TV stations (e.g. in a rural area and couldn't afford satellite) I might only have access to a few channels. If there weren't any regulations to protect the "public good" those few channels could have total control over the information I receive and thus I would be at the mercy of the political agenda of the station's owners. This would be a very bad thing. And to many people it still is because they can not afford or do not have access to cable or satellite TV. It is a very dicey balancing act and fortunately it is limited to broadcast TV. Radio, satellite TV, cable TV and the Internet do not have these concerns. In twenty years this whole issue may be a totally mute point as TV and the Internet totally merge and everyone can post/publish/broadcast whatever they like. This is one of the reasons writing "network neutrality" for the Internet into Federal Regulations is so important. It will ensure we never need regulations like we have for broadcast TV. In regards to broadcast TV those limitations will always exist and as long as there is broadcast TV as we know it today it will always need to be regulated in this manner. Newer technologies that do not have these inherent limitations do not need said regulations. During the last Presidential election one of our local TV stations habitually broadcast editorials that were passed off as fact and pushed their political agenda, without giving equal air time to opposing points of view. This really skewed issues as they were a primary source of local news and information for a lot of people. Could you see what would happen if there were only two or three TV stations that covered local news and events in an area and they started broadcasting political views that supported their own political agenda that was driven by their commercial self interest that really ran contrary to the best interests of the local community? Being able to have such power over information would be a very dangerous thing and would be just as bad if not worse than government sponsored censorship. At least with the current system there are a series of checks and balances that limit how much any one entity (commercial or governmental) can abuse their power.
The more reading I'm doing on this subject the more that I see that the whole "threatening" the FCC license issue is an exaggeration and fabrication of conservatives. Yes the Democrats might call for hearings and file complaints with the FCC. This, however, would no more likely lead to the revoking of licenses than did all of the outcry over the Janet Jackson incident. At worst all that would happen would be fines and lots of hearings. The truth of the matter is that "conservatives" are simply overplaying their hands in an effort to do more bashing of Democrats. Again, I will say that if the shoe where on the other foot the Republicans and conservatives in general would be howling and screaming way louder than what the Democrats are. Grassroots... Give me a break, this day in age nothing is truly spontaneous grassroots efforts. The conservative movement is no more independent from the agenda of the core Republican activists than MoveOn.org is independent from core Democratic activists. I'm not a fan of them either; however, I did vet all of their references and the articles in question were pretty well documented via links to "conservative" sites. This is what took me so long to reply to your post. I was spending a great deal of time checking out their claims (what a pain in the ass). Their claims about the political agendas of those involved with the movie do check out. Agreed, but again if you follow their links and vet out their claims they do check out. See my post above. I see a critical and important difference between broadcast TV and cable/satellite TV. This comes from living in areas where sometimes there were only one or two channels to choose from and the failure to protect the premises of the "common good" could have serious ramifications. Our local Sinclair owned station should have been fined very severely. They abused their position very severely in our market. Their editorials made Dan Rather's National Guard report look mild in comparison. It wasn't just one editorial it was a new editorial every single day many of which seriously distorted the facts and they never showed a competing viewpoint. It was an outrageous abuse of the public trust. I had never seen such a blatant abuse of public airways from ANY TV station ever anywhere. The only reason they got away with it was because it was a Republican controlled FCC. There you go again. You can claim first amendment rights being trampled all you want, it doesn't make it true. Just like Dick Chenny could repeat his claim that Sadam Hussain harbored Al Qada terrorists as many times as he wanted it still didn't make it true (and as the Senate report showed it wasn't and that the CIA never believed it was). Once again, the as part of their being granted, for free, exclusive use of parts of the radio spectrum, ABC and their affiliates agreed to accept certain responsibilities and obligations that supersedes ABC's First Amendment claims. The reason for this is that others do not enjoy the same privileges to have their voices heard as ABC does becuase they do not get to use or access the public airways except through entities like ABC. Because the very fact that ABC and other broadcast TV networks have control over public airways and who gets to broadcast their messages via those public airways, TV networks and TV stations have burdens placed upon them upon how they can use those public airways. At first glance this would appear to run counter to the First Amendment but are in fact it is critical towards protecting the first amendment rights of others. In direct relation to the content of the movie: My whole point in this debate is that it is time to put an end to the political hyperbole and the distortion of facts for political advantage. Yes it has been going on for decades, but for the past dozen years every election cycle it has gotten worse and more egregious. The only way this country can get its self back on course and resolve its problems is to wrestle control of it from the political extremes that control it. The movie in question is nothing more than a continuation of the extremes trying to shout each other down and distort events for their own nefarious purposes. I am sorry but I do not like the vision the extremes of either party have for this country. I would no sooner vote for Howard Dean than I would George Bush. The ABC mini-series needs to be pulled and should not be aired on broadcast TV until ALL factual errors have been removed and all claims in the movie have been fully vetted There is no way that this could happen before tomorrow night. There is no doubt from the research I had to do today on this issue that those responsible for creating this movie had a politically motivated agenda in the production of this movie. If ABC wants to release it on one of their cable networks, fine, if they want to release it on the Internet, fine. However, based on all the reports I have read, as the movie stands today it tramples on the public responsibilities ABC has as part of their privilege of being given exclusive access sections of the public airways and it should not be shown on broadcast TV.
I understand your basic reasoning on this subject, and thank you for the volumes of information. It does make sense in theory and reality to a point... But dangerous is an odd term to use here, because I don't think they're diverse as they are...and thus dangerous enough. This is a personal issue I have myself ie it's part of something I'm contemplating in an ideas I have. How does one have focus within diverse thoughts, and still remain diverse? How does one prevent an overly bias direction, without setting standards that may hinder different perspectives? If you have an idea tell me, but here's my conclusion on power: You can't stop the desire to dominate, it's an inherent part of human existence. All you can do is create an avenue that's open to everyone. I suppose I generally understand your perspective. But personally, All I hear about in the news is the repub/dem thoughts, but nothing of those variants (as if they don't exist). Once in a million years they'll venture into Libertarian thought, almost never socialism, and never communism....not that I find all these idealogies good, I just find the perspectives (ie spectrum) limited. It's as though there are only two perspectives in this world. I find that more dangerous than anything. Curious...you speak of the internet. Is the internet limited in any particular way ie can someone literally buy it off? I'm not that familiar, to be truthfull.
Agreed... "to a point". I would never want to see this model extended to cable/satellite TV or radio. Again I agree, for this reason I rarely watch broadcast TV except for the evening news and public television. Even the network news programs are getting pretty poor. Ten or twenty years ago we would have never seen the bad reporting we saw with Dan Rather during the last election. True investigative reporting also seems to be a lost art. PBS does a good job of investigative reporting but this is only one perspective. I'd love to see a return to the golden age of 60 minutes and the like. Peter Jennings was very good, but sadly we don't have him any longer and I'm not convinced that ABC news is holding up to his standards. I am pretty excited that my public TV station picked up BBC World News which does help expand my exposure to different news perspectives. I sometimes feel that the 24 hour news cycle, cable TV news and Internet blogs are driving the news in such a way that stories really don't have the ability to be fully researched and vetted before being aired even on broadcast TV. I think for starters we must depolarize our public discourse. "News" programs like FOX News and MSNBCs "HardBall" have turned news and political discussion into full contact entertainment. The extremes of the Republican and Democratic parties are also stifling diverse perspectives and civil discourse. Everything is being boiled down to "either you're with us or you are against us" attitude. TV is becoming extremely dumbed down and can not seem to get past political spin and political agendas to get to the heart of the matter. We need a return to reporters like Edward R. Murrow for whom it was the search for the truth that drove a story not a political agenda. Edward R. Murrow's pursuit of Joseph McCarthy wasn't politically motivated; it was motivated by the desire to dig for the truth. What would we learn from a documentary focused on the 9/11 report was truly focused on the search for the truth and was not politically motivated? What if we wrestled control of our public airways away from political operatives and their spin machines? Was the Clinton Whitehouse really dragging their feet in regards to bin Laden as the Republicans like us to believe, or was Clinton really trying to pursue bin Laden while the Republicans grumbled that he was spending too much time chasing after a two bit terrorist and ignoring Saddam Hussein who was a bigger threat? In part yes, but as a society we also need to demand more. When you create an avenue that is open to all, you don't necessarily get to the truth; you just get a lot of political blogs spouting off political agendas. This is an important part of the social/political discourse; however, we still need people who are willing to be objective and to put political agendas aside. I completely agree with you. I really think our two party system is failing us and it is time for there to be a strong third party once again (remember the Republicans were the third party at one time). Personally I'd like to see the Republican party split with the new splinter party going back to the roots of the Republican party (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt with a lot less gun boat diplomacy or Dwight Eisenhower). Traditionally it has not been limited in any way and FTC (federal trade commission) network neutrality policies ensured this; however, last year the FTC removed network neutrality requirements from their policies. Unless Congress enacts regulations that reinstates network neutrality we run a serious risk that commercial interests (read telecommunication and cable companies) could gain considerable control over what content people are able to access (see http://www.savetheinternet.com/ and in particularly http://www.savetheinternet.com/=coalition).
Well, my fears is always how you divide capitalism within regulation ie the particular method. I do think anarcho-capitalism is a bit out-there, and there needs to be practical view on regulation...but historically a regulated market with a weird form of capitalism usually screws someone. I'd say from what I am reading, that tv is a very bad place for the private media. There's virtues and vices in mostly everything. Capitalism in media tends to make it more flamboyant (especially if that's the philosophy of the corporate managers), rather than a purely factual thing. The media is become more of hollywood-like organization. *shrug* I'm just hoping the internet speeds up a bit soon, and news is more-so decentralized. Obviously people will get their quick fixes still, but it could hopefully lead to various opinions, which would not be just a uniform pair of thoughts. But they make the cash...lol. Journalism?....yeah, what's that. Reminds me of a quote from King Krimson lyrics: Between the iron gates of fate, The seeds of time were sown, And watered by the deeds of those Who know and who are known; Knowledge is a deadly friend When no one sets the rules. The fate of all mankind I see Is in the hands of fools. Well, I'll assume some of it's based on some sort of truth or other parts of it are pure fiction; but we'll see. But isn't there a valid arguement that among the discourse that's obviously bias, a objective story fairs more true ie a true story among false stories, helps the case of truth? Such is debate. I find the biggest problem in America and the world is, is that we don't debate enough. We have so many avenues of rhetoric, but very few avenues of dispute. How many media sources display their stories and ask to them be challenged on their own site? How many give the method and means for them to proven incorrect in a manner that's open to the public? The media is so eager to go from story to story and not really explore the idea until it's a science. Realistically I understand that's just not the biggest interest in the world...we want news to be somewhat fast...but generally there should be an avenue of thought that's throrough and almost scientific in nature, don't you agree? May I ask you question: Are you webmaster as well? Yeah, I agree. The repub are just who they are based on demographics and the circumstances they are put under...not really as conservative anymore. The dems are somewhere, just not on earth. I like the Libertarians, but they're too idealistic. So they're fighting for the internet's historical status quo ie network neutrality? Doesn't sound that bad. I'm confused on this whole subject. I'm thinking there's multiple means to the internet, but I'm assuming the whole bad thing would be...I control comcast, so I can dictate what can or can't be seen on comcast internet....tell me if I'm somewhat close to the fear....?
At the same time these same regulations served the broadcast TV networks very well and they were able to build unchallenged media empires from sections of the radio spectrum that they were given exclusive access to free of charge. The three commercial networks had nearly complete control over what we saw on TV for around 60-70 years. It was really a very sweet deal for them with very few strings. I think this has always been true, its just that there used to be more very strong willed personalities that took TV journalism very, very, seriously and were willing to fight against their network bosses desire to make the news more entertaining. If you haven't watched it already, I strongly recommend watching the movie "Good Night and Good Luck" it is a very good look at this. One thing I do think is that in many ways the commercial demands of capitalism in TV media is a very hard force to fight against when trying to maintain extremely high standards of journalism. Look at where all of the really good investigative journalism is coming from on TV today. It is all on PBS, which doesn't have a profit motive or shareholders demanding ever greater returns on investments. All they have to do is generate enough revenue from corporate sponsors and their membership drives to keep their bills paid. The problem is that this is only one network, which means even with their best efforts it is still a limited set of perspectives. The problem with the Internet is accountability. Anybody can say anything about any subject whether they are qualified to write on the subject or not. As such on the Internet it is even more important to cite sources and document the background research done for an article. Who is the writer? What is their motivation? What are their agendas? What are the sources of information for an article? Way too few online bloggers/publishers disclose this information. Its a dying art practiced by the news media in the last century. Not me, I'm watching Ted Koppel's special on the Discovery Channel instead. He's one of those old school journalists we have been talking about. Not enough. Yes I agree, however, docudramas rarely to never rise to this standard especially when it comes current events. I prefer to think about my as a web publisher, but yes I do all of my own website development. In fact I have been developing websites since 1995. If you are referring to my environmental chemistry site, I am primarily a web publisher, not a scientist. If you review my site you will find I don't write the articles rather I recruit scientists to write articles on their specialty. I do do all of the research for database driven type resources (e.g. chemical database, periodic table of elements, etc.). In regards to my above comments about disclosure, bios are published for each writer and bibliographies are provided for each article so that readers can validate and evaluate the claims made in articles for them selves. It is really interesting that those who claim to be the most conservative really don't hold to traditional conservative values, which include fiscal conservatism and ironically environmental conservatism (yep the most important environmental conservation efforts were pushed forward by old school Republicans). Even monopoly busting was started by Republicans. Like the Republicans, it is social ideology that is overwhelming all other concerns that have a bigger impact and are things that politicians can actually do something about. Yes. This is something the telecommunications companies don't want people to understand. In spite of their claims that network neutrality would stifle innovation, all of the great innovation we have seen has come about under the protections of network neutrality. In fact one of the companies that is fighting against network neutrality the hardest is AT&T, who was the company that also fought against allowing consumers the right to attach any device they wanted to their telephone lines (e.g. fax machines, telephones not purchased from AT&T, etc.). They also refused the original contracts to build the Internet for the Department of Defense. You are spot on to the concern. What compounds the concern is that there is no true competition in the broadband Internet market. In most U.S. markets there are only two broadband service providers at most. One service provider is normally the local cable TV provider (normally TimeWarner, Cox Cable OR Comcast), the other service provider is normally the local telephone company (normally Verison, Bell South OR one of the other few "baby Bells"). Normally the providers have exclusive contracts with the municipalities they serve, thus there is no means for competitive broadband providers to enter most U.S. markets. Even Google's effort to entering the broadband market via community wide wireless Internet is being fought by the existing providers based on the exclusive contracts. Without network neutrality, the Internet could end up like the old days of broadcast TV where only a couple of companies could exert complete control over what information local communities could have access to.
That's the sad thing with limited things; some one will get screwed. If there's cable line, people will argue whom gets control of that cable....if there's oil in the ground, people will fight whom controls that. Ultimately it's a finite material/service that can end-up being more of a cost than necessary. It's really hard to argue over such a topic, because it seems like in this day and age we could leave some of those subjects to the past (due technology)....I guess we can't. Will do. Same with most music, IMO. MTV killed music. Although occasionally you'll see a glimmer of of something good come-out of it. I'm not a big fan of commercializing things, but I see the general value of corporations mass production/research capiblities. Our founders used psuedo names when writing. Often they lied quite a bit. I'd say it's a cultural phenomena of science in terms of demanding documentation, not a political thing. One of the greatest things to come-out of our modern age is peer review in my perspective... I'd say the title is a bit provactive, but I think it will end-up being fair...but what do I know about Ted Koppel!? I probably won't watch either. Personally, I think the greatness in any man is to believe he always has something to learn; and that he must refine his perspective by interacting and allowing others the right to judge his thoughts, and it's depth. Some original conservative thoughts are a bit out-dated e.g an isolationist policy. Now conservatives lean upon a more aggressive policy, that actually originated within extreme liberals sources (right around roosevelts era). Not great, but different. Old dems were technically religious libertarian slaveowners. And durning the early 1900's everything switched around somehow ie democrats started adopting more republican-like behaviours, while maintain their culture. The new dems were no-longer economic libertarians (which had a great deal to do with the advent of communism). They adopted mild forms of socialism. Both parties were an oddity at that period in time, as we wouldn't recognize them today. But that's how parties are, they change due to their constituents and the enviroment. Are we in any way or manner able to expand these networks without political force ie through a form technology? In the foreseeable future? Is there a viable way to open up competition in this? Somehow that doesn't make sense to me. Whom gives these contracts out, the city councils? The cables are laid by these individual companies, so they request rights to them I assume? I'm trying to work out the 'problems' in my head, but I'm thinking it wouldn't be THAT hard to have a sort open market (with general limitations) for other business to enter in. I'm guessing that's why most stock speculators are saying stay away from communication investments. Sounds like a state law affirming a reasonable way to let providers compete would be good for this, wouldn't it?
I missed the first half hour, but the last 2.5 hours were really interesting. The beginning of the program was a series of interviews and investigative reporting Ted Koppel did to look at the issue of balancing security vs. civil liberties. It then shifted over to a town meeting format with a pannel of some of seriously heavy hitters in Washington including current and former Bush administration officials (e.g. Tom Ridge who was the first director of Homeland Security). The audiance consisted of various individuals directly interested in different aspects of this issue (e.g. military lawyers, civil liberties lawyers, an individual who helped author the Patriot Act, family members of individuals killed on 9/11, etc.). The whole program seemed less about pointing fingers and more about asking questions and driving serious discussion about how we should balance to very important concerns. I liked Ted Koppel's closing statement. He basically said there is only one country on Earth that can guarantee complete security.... North Korea. In order to have complete security we would have to give up all civil liberties. I don't look at this as greatness, I look at this as a necessity that all people need to adopt. It is the only way we can truly understand and grow as individuals Agreed, but others are timeless. For instance the root of conservative is to conserve (e.g. conservation). Conservation for the future is exceedingly important, whether it be conservation of resources, conservation of the environment, conservation of liberties or fiscal conservation. Unlikely, there will always be the medium that conducts the data from point A to point B that will be limited or controlled by a self interested entity (e.g. radio spectrum for wireless or fiber optic cables owned by a company). Within the next ten years? Unlikely. Constant corporate mergers and consolidation of communication companies will always work against any progress made at opening up competition. In order to get cable companies to lay cable and service all parts of a community, not just the most affluent areas, municipalities struck up deals with cable companies that they could have exclusive rights to provide cable access to their communities in exchange for building out their networks to service the ENTIRE community, not just the most profitable areas. The same thing happened with telephone companies in many areas. Without these exclusive contracts cable and telephone companies would have been very reluctant to expend great amounts of capital to build out their networks into remote or low income parts of communities because of a lack of profitability. Stringing out hundreds of miles of cable to service a limited number of rural customers is not as profitable as stringing out tens of miles of cable to serve large numbers of urban customers. Even without the exclusive contracts, the economic costs of building out networks seriously limit the numbers of competitors who would want to enter many markets. This means that like broadcast TV in many markets there will always be a very limited number of entities that control the lines of communication. Government regulations (e.g. network neutrality) are the only way to ensure that the interests of individual citizens are protected from the economic self interest of large telecommunications conglomerates. Remember it was really Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) who really championed the idea of regulating industry and busting the monopolies. Stock speculators are looking for outrageous potentials for growth. Telecommunications rarely to never provides such potentials. However, telecommunications companies like AT&T have traditionally been very safe forms of investing that have paid out very reliable dividends (e.g. great for long term retirement funds). In cities like New York this is entirely practical. In small communities like Portland Maine and its surrounding county this is totally unrealistic. The only way multiple providers could be encouraged to move in is if the state and federal government paid for the construction of multiple sets of infrastructure and then gave this to the providers. It is far more economical and practical to follow the regulated monopoly/duelopoly model where a limited number of companies are given franchises for a specific area (thus helping to guarantee profits) but then heavily regulated to protect the interests of the individuals in that community (e.g. network neutrality and/or the broadcast TV regulations).