Dec. 21, 2010
COMMENTARY: FCC Set to ‘Regulate’ Internet Content Access Similar to Broadcasting Doctrines
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Washington, DC (HNN) – The Federal Communications Commission has a plan to restrict your First Amendment rights. Actually, these communications regulations have been consistently enforced and expanded. Think radio, perceive television, imagine satellite content providers, and next to succumb, internet providers.
Under the guise of “net neutrality,” the FCC assured that the broadcast medium(s) did not have the same freedoms as print media. Since the “spectrum” was a limited , precious commodity, a gatekeeper had authority to permit what most see and hear. Only, the intellectual , the truth seeking, and the minority viewpoints sought a greener pasture than ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.
ONLY TWO SIDES?
The “neutrality” means that the government feels we do not have the capacity to seek out information ourselves; they insist that allegedly “both sides” are readily available. That’s why those individuals with viewpoints not represented by the two majorities sought other methods of banding together.
In purest form, the broadcast media reflect the political thoughts of specific regions. Under the original version of “net neutrality,” the aim was to ensure “equal time” for opposing points of view on the public airwaves. Those were also the days when a successful entrepreneur in a town could still apply and receive a license to broadcast whether AM, FM, VHF, or UHF along with a grant of how powerful the transmitted signal could be.
But, the F.C.C. determined “how many” licenses were available for each individual “market” (i.e. town, city, community). In the beginning, stations had local voices and/or images dominating the airwaves. Karaoke Amateur Hours, Wrestling, Preaching, Sports and News. When viewers demanded more quality, the national network and syndicated programming filled holes. Now, many (most?) radio stations re-broadcast a disc jockey (far cry from original dramatic oratories with sound effects) and television has local news. WSAZ’s “Late Night” produced by Marshall students has represented a rarity for decades.
BIG UGLY DISH
Ironically, the freedom to capture a telecommunications signal with a parabolic “dish” on the house or in the yard once paralleled the internet. No encryption. No paying a monthly fee. No subject to blackout rules.
Virtually anyone who could afford the satellite rental price tag could make a tape and tout their message to potentially a world wide audience. One catch --- those desiring to listen or watch had to know when to point their “dish” to pull in the signal.
West Virginians living in rural valleys (otherwise called “hollers”) saved their bucks to purchase an un-censored, un-analyzed window to the world.
As this technology became more affordable, the content providers in the sky (i.e. HBO, CNN, WABC) wanted to both sell the signal and control the reception thereof.
The latter allowed restrictive segmentation based on “localism.” . If you lived in Chicago, you naturally want to watch the local stations, the local pro sports teams, and the local news. But, forward thinkers wanted communication from other regions, New York, Los Angeles, Russia, for example.
THE SPIN OF NEUTRALITY
No one telling what you can and can not do. Big Business. Small Business. Majority. Niche. On the internet, space is infinite, so a home built site gets the same treatment as Google. You choose the links which can be clicked and the content thereof. You do not like broadcasters have to provide ‘equal time’ for opposing points of view. Those of differing viewpoints simply click to a site that reflects their opinion.
OBSCURITY REIGNS
The internet slips under the broadcast communication regulations. You can type, insert, cut or paste until your brain’s content searching for your ‘truth.’ No multiple choice, fill in the blank or true / false, it’s a limitless essay . If you do not see what you quest, you can easily and inexpensively put it ‘under construction.’
WHY NOT CHOICE?
Why does the government care about these ‘choices?’ People with the freedom to choose often associate with others likeminded. Once they find more support, their grassroots idea has a chance of breaking through to the mainstream.
Thus, in the fading days of satellite signal freedom, a voice from the sky asked that those in opposition to regulated regionalization of choice JAMMED the telephone and fax lines to Congressional representatives and senators, simply by the program’s host dividing the country by time zones. Few became mighty. Voices screaming free flow of information at least made themselves known. Rather than risk angering this segment of the constituency, an amendment came forth that GRANDFATHERED those already exploring freely.
Access is golden. The few could (in theory) watch/hear the variation of governmental ‘spin,’ tuned for appeal to the masses of individual locations. Translation --- New Yorkers were told what they wanted to hear and they did not hear the flip flop on the West Coast.
ENTER INTERNET POD CASTS
Using that term betrayed the pathway for the ‘free’ communications medium. The FCC and President Obama will slip a veil into the wild, wild internet which ensures that the corporate mainstream opinions rule.
Equal is not equal and neutral is not neutral when there is more than TWO.
Thus, when something goes up that’s not politically correct, there’s a good chance you’ll click and find:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-technology/20100406/US.TEC.Internet.Rules/
We’re Sorry
The article you are looking for cannot be found or is no longer available.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
COMMENTARY: FCC Set to ‘Regulate’ Internet Content Access Similar to Broadcasting Doctrines
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Washington, DC (HNN) – The Federal Communications Commission has a plan to restrict your First Amendment rights. Actually, these communications regulations have been consistently enforced and expanded. Think radio, perceive television, imagine satellite content providers, and next to succumb, internet providers.
Under the guise of “net neutrality,” the FCC assured that the broadcast medium(s) did not have the same freedoms as print media. Since the “spectrum” was a limited , precious commodity, a gatekeeper had authority to permit what most see and hear. Only, the intellectual , the truth seeking, and the minority viewpoints sought a greener pasture than ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.
ONLY TWO SIDES?
The “neutrality” means that the government feels we do not have the capacity to seek out information ourselves; they insist that allegedly “both sides” are readily available. That’s why those individuals with viewpoints not represented by the two majorities sought other methods of banding together.
In purest form, the broadcast media reflect the political thoughts of specific regions. Under the original version of “net neutrality,” the aim was to ensure “equal time” for opposing points of view on the public airwaves. Those were also the days when a successful entrepreneur in a town could still apply and receive a license to broadcast whether AM, FM, VHF, or UHF along with a grant of how powerful the transmitted signal could be.
But, the F.C.C. determined “how many” licenses were available for each individual “market” (i.e. town, city, community). In the beginning, stations had local voices and/or images dominating the airwaves. Karaoke Amateur Hours, Wrestling, Preaching, Sports and News. When viewers demanded more quality, the national network and syndicated programming filled holes. Now, many (most?) radio stations re-broadcast a disc jockey (far cry from original dramatic oratories with sound effects) and television has local news. WSAZ’s “Late Night” produced by Marshall students has represented a rarity for decades.
BIG UGLY DISH
Ironically, the freedom to capture a telecommunications signal with a parabolic “dish” on the house or in the yard once paralleled the internet. No encryption. No paying a monthly fee. No subject to blackout rules.
Virtually anyone who could afford the satellite rental price tag could make a tape and tout their message to potentially a world wide audience. One catch --- those desiring to listen or watch had to know when to point their “dish” to pull in the signal.
West Virginians living in rural valleys (otherwise called “hollers”) saved their bucks to purchase an un-censored, un-analyzed window to the world.
As this technology became more affordable, the content providers in the sky (i.e. HBO, CNN, WABC) wanted to both sell the signal and control the reception thereof.
The latter allowed restrictive segmentation based on “localism.” . If you lived in Chicago, you naturally want to watch the local stations, the local pro sports teams, and the local news. But, forward thinkers wanted communication from other regions, New York, Los Angeles, Russia, for example.
THE SPIN OF NEUTRALITY
No one telling what you can and can not do. Big Business. Small Business. Majority. Niche. On the internet, space is infinite, so a home built site gets the same treatment as Google. You choose the links which can be clicked and the content thereof. You do not like broadcasters have to provide ‘equal time’ for opposing points of view. Those of differing viewpoints simply click to a site that reflects their opinion.
OBSCURITY REIGNS
The internet slips under the broadcast communication regulations. You can type, insert, cut or paste until your brain’s content searching for your ‘truth.’ No multiple choice, fill in the blank or true / false, it’s a limitless essay . If you do not see what you quest, you can easily and inexpensively put it ‘under construction.’
WHY NOT CHOICE?
Why does the government care about these ‘choices?’ People with the freedom to choose often associate with others likeminded. Once they find more support, their grassroots idea has a chance of breaking through to the mainstream.
Thus, in the fading days of satellite signal freedom, a voice from the sky asked that those in opposition to regulated regionalization of choice JAMMED the telephone and fax lines to Congressional representatives and senators, simply by the program’s host dividing the country by time zones. Few became mighty. Voices screaming free flow of information at least made themselves known. Rather than risk angering this segment of the constituency, an amendment came forth that GRANDFATHERED those already exploring freely.
Access is golden. The few could (in theory) watch/hear the variation of governmental ‘spin,’ tuned for appeal to the masses of individual locations. Translation --- New Yorkers were told what they wanted to hear and they did not hear the flip flop on the West Coast.
ENTER INTERNET POD CASTS
Using that term betrayed the pathway for the ‘free’ communications medium. The FCC and President Obama will slip a veil into the wild, wild internet which ensures that the corporate mainstream opinions rule.
Equal is not equal and neutral is not neutral when there is more than TWO.
Thus, when something goes up that’s not politically correct, there’s a good chance you’ll click and find:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-technology/20100406/US.TEC.Internet.Rules/
We’re Sorry
The article you are looking for cannot be found or is no longer available.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
