Categories
Politics

CNN racist fraud?

Did CNN attempt to alter a photograph of a mixed race man in an attempt to make him appear more white?

This is a very disturbing allegation and one that appears to have some traction, but will the FCC take steps to investigate the alleged fraud?

Categories
Politics

Net Neutrality?

So, what is Net Neutrality?

That might be up for debate because what you hear from one side is totally different from the other side.

On one side you hear that large corporations are planning on using the internet as a way to make even more money from the “already” high fees that they have been charging, along with poor service…

On the other side they say that the FCC is going to stifle the growth of the internet by classifying it as a utility.

Both situations sound bad.

We  have equally bad people that want to take control over the internet.

We need fairness…

We need some rules and we need protection from those that would harm the internet and from those that practice deception in order to take money from hard working people in the name of getting rich.

We need a way to stop people from keeping freedom of speech from being the normal online.

WE do not need the FCC making thousands of rules and regulations.

 

Categories
2014 election 2014 election day 2014 vote them out Politics slow internet

Net Neutrality

Does anyone really understand how bad this deal is for the entire world.  This is where the future of competition is headed, remember the futuristic movie where there was only one restaurant, Taco Bell.

It is interesting that in this situation public opinion is 100 percent against this yet the FCC is going to proceed?

That defies all logic, yet they are attempting to do what ever they want to do no matter what…

The only way to send a real message to these bullies of the internet, is to just vote the people who continue to support this action out of office.

IT really is just that simple, vote them out.

Categories
Politics

The Will of the People

It means nothing apparently what the people say means nothing to those in power in washington.

Take for example, the idea that there will now be priority speed for only those large business websites that can afford to pay for those services.

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

What this means is that smaller Mom and Pop websites will no longer be able to compete online.

It is a Death Panel for many of the smaller business locations online where many US businesses are desperately clinging to a meager profit.

The truth about what this means is devastating to the American Dream…

Categories
Politics

Fox, Directv, and the extortionists way?

Is Fox extorting money from directv ?

Should Fox be taken over by the government.

While this might sound something of a strange story, apparently there is an ongoing controversy concerning the Fox network and directv.  On one side the story is that the evil News corp wants to increase the subscription fees, to a whopping 40 percent higher.

At issue are several channels that the News corp corporation wants to be compensated at a much higher rate, to hear directv tell the story they are allegedly being extorted into paying a much higher price.

You just dont know what to believe, but one thing remains clear, if they do stop cable distribution of those channels then will my bill go down, and more importantly will your bill go down because hey lets face it, we all need a break and in a time when the economy is really doing poorly, I can go outside and watch the grass grow and be just about as entertained as watching news corp…

In fact DirecTV is taking the News Corp Giant to task with the FCC stating that there could be some nasty business going on, (allegedly) and to be honest, it really makes you wonder, who is the provider here and who is the subscriber.

The contract dispute concerns FX, 19 regional sports networks (including Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket here in Los Angeles) and a handful of smaller channels (but not Fox News), News Corp. is leading people to think that its Fox broadcast network would also be dropped next week. “Fox is using misleading advertising informing DirecTV customers that ‘soon, in some markets, you may lose your local Fox station,’” Chang wrote to the FCC. “Even if the Fox cable channels are no longer carried on Nov. 1

 No matter where you come down on this dispute, no one wants to pay more and everyone would rather pay less, so I say throw the bums out and cut my bill accordingly, but how much do you want to bet that directv does not want to do that…

This may well be a case of having your cake and eating it too…

Categories
Politics

FTC fairness doctrine for the internet?

Over the past three years, we have seen the constitution trampled on by every liberal in DC yet the media barely covers these miscreants, in their ivory towers. When will the media begin to report on these issues that effect all of the world…

Are we looking at yet another attempt to censor the free speech of the internet?

Is this yet another fairness doctrine attempt, this time in the name of protecting consumers online?

When we have blatantly deceptive commercial advertising on network TV Cable and Radio, that are deceptive yet are not enforced, what should the consuming public think of this?

What will happen in the future?

So what is the Fairness doctrine?

source wikipedia.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.[1] The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine imposed two rules for broadcasters: First it required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, and it required broadcasters to provide reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting view points. The second rule required contingent access obligations on broadcasters to provide reply time to issue oriented citizens and editorialized on public issues. Broadcasters could trigger fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. Spectrum scarcity was the doctrines reason for being made. Because more people wanted to broadcast than available frequencies could accommodate, broadcasters’ public trustee obligations required regulatory clarification, the FCC reasoned. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.[2]

 

When will we learn as a people as a race of people that there are things in this world that are not fair.

That life is not fair, that sometimes, the lives of soldiers are required to insure the freedom of people.

Sometimes we see the things in this world and we want to do something to make it fair, but the fact is there is no fairness to life, there is not a guarantee, that people will be treated the same way the same time every time.

When a man tried to equalize the world what happens is that eventually the scale balance’s itself.

The fairness doctrine was a failure, back in 1949 and it was a failure in the 60s when they tried it, and it was a failure in the 1970s when they once again tried, it.

The fact is that the fairness doctrine will not work and it will not work for this case either.

The only way to be fair is to require it of everyone, if you require disclosure of one group you must require it of all groups.

 

It is time for politicians to tend to their own business and let us deal with ours.

Categories
Politics

progressive politics

Well apparently the idea of unequal protection, is not a problem in Washington as the FTC mulls the idea of creating guides that only would allegedly be enforced on the internet creating an unequal burden on advertisers who advertise online as opposed to broadcast advertising.

This would create a chilling effect on the NASDAQ and the internet for many small business owners who have just now begun to advertise online.

Stop playing politics with the lives of Americans.

Stop playing politics with small business.

Stop playing politics with policies that are not equally protective of
all consumers.

Un Equal protection, under the law is that the way that Washington prefers to do things these days?

You just have to scratch your head and wonder about all the strange goings on in the minds of those odd people.

Source Cnet

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday detailed plans for its so-called “third way” to reclassify broadband service as a telecommunications service, which would help the agency reassert its authority for regulating the Internet, after it lost an important legal battle last month.

The purpose of the statement is to put the agency on stronger legal footing after a federal appeals court ruled last year

that the FCC had no legal authority to punish Comcast for slowing down BitTorrent traffic on its network. The FCC officially censured Comcast for violating its Net neutrality principles.

The court decision has called into question the FCC’s authority for any regulation of the Internet, especially new regulation the agency is forming to deal with Net neutrality–the broad question of whether rules are needed to prevent lopsided treatment for certain Web sites or types of Internet traffic. The chairman’s statement, which asks for input from the public and the industry in determining how traffic should be reclassified, is a step toward making the FCC’s legal status in regulating broadband services more certain.

 

There are a lot of other things that could be much more important than trying to take control over the internet one has to question the intent of that issue.

So what is going on with this new attempt to apply a different set of rules for online advertisers than they do for off line advertisers?

 

Categories
911 Aarp aclu acorn arrogant america

FCC take over of the internet?

Is this possible, will it ruin the internet?

This is not constitutional and must be stopped, this is wrong in every conceivable way you can imagine.

In case your just now hearing this.

Stop this insanity help us challenge this by filing a lawsuit if necessary.

The FCC has no authority to govern or to regulate the internet.

The internet is made up of a number of private and some public servers, but it is not something that can be (taken over) this is wrong and it will be challenged in court.

This is a power grab of UN Godly proportions, folks this is not only evil but it is wrong, watch the stock market sink like a lead balloon.

If you have stock in the NASDAQ, you might consider moving it or liquidating it.

What they are attempting to do is nothing short of Fascism, (allegedly)

Stop this insanity help us challenge this by filing a lawsuit if necessary.


Taking over and regulating, Cable TV, Satellite TV, and now the Internet?

This past week, the FCC has grabbed more power that they have no constitutional authority to regulate.

Lawsuits must be filed by the largest ISPs right away challenging this or else freedom will be lost in this nation.

Lawsuits must be filed to challenge the constitutionality of this power grab, this must not be allowed to take place.

Cable companies need to file lawsuits.

Satellite Companies need to file lawsuits.

Categories
Aarp loud commercials

FCC now can act when TV commercials are too loud.

Will it make any difference, or will they just keep on doing what they want because this is really just an excuse to try to illegally, (allegedly) give powers to the Fcc that they do not have nor should they have.

Since 1960 reports have been coming into the FCC, allegedly, but nothing has ever been done, now we have the CALM act, but will it do any good at all?

I just have one question, why has Fox news not covered this momentous achievement of the Obama Administration?

Well could it be that they are taking money from the very people that the FCC wants to CALM DOWN, sure and why not we are sick and tired of the overly loud TV commercials, that blast your ear drums over and over again or how about this, the practice of reducing the volume on regular TV programming so that you have to turn up your TV each time you want to watch something that is not a commercial.

So why has Fox news not covered this story, or for that matter why has not CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, well has anyone covered it?

So what up, besides the volume, I mean when I watch a TV show and I have to turn down the volume on every commercial because of how loud it is, that is just wrong.

Are you seeing loud commercials?

If you are you should get your eyes checked because we are talking about how loud a commercials and since you cant see, then you better listen up.

From the FCC website,
If You Have a Complaint

Under most circumstances, it is in the interest of broadcasters to use equipment and procedures to avoid “loud” commercials and background noise. If you have a complaint about “loud” commercials and background noise, first try reducing the volume by checking your television and remote control. You may also contact the station(s) involved and explain your concerns. You should identify each message of concern by the sponsor or product’s name and by the date and time of the broadcast.

So, does this cover, cable networks that are really blasting your ear drums, with excessive, noise?

Probably not, but it may be one of the “convenient excuses” that the FCC decides to use in order to take over the internet and cable networks.

However, knowing just how excessive this noise can actually be would it really be such a bad thing that some control is exerted over the programming jerks that constantly bombard us with loud commercials?

Perhaps not, as long as they do not ask for an inch and intend to take a mile.

So what is next, should we regulate how much sugar is in a can of soda?

Categories
journalism is dead Shutting up Fox news

How the FCC could shut down Fox news?

Will Fox Fall to the Trap setup by the liberals in Washington?

We ask this question not because we really think that fox news is this stupid, but because we think that fox news may have producers that are that stupid.

Will Fox news be so ignorant as to fall for this trap?

So you might be wondering about this, well it is so secret, at all, This current Administration and even some hot headed liberal senators have come right out and suggested that Fox news should not be allowed a voice (unless they say what liberals like to hear) but this seems a little crazy, we already have that in virtually every media outlet out there.

So why would they want to silence and censor the one news company that has a different view?

Well there are a number of things it could be none of them are very nice.

The way though that Fox news will fall victim to the efforts to silence them is with the new CALM act.

Apparently Fox news is too stupid (allegedly) to figure this out and this is even more interesting, advertisers that pump up the volume on their commercials, so that it is so loud as to wake someone that is jaded enough to actually fall asleep during the commercial.

So all Fox has to do is to enforce this new law, but see they will not do it, why because Advertisers will pay more money to have louder commercials, so eventually what will happen, (allegedly) is that Fox will be fined and fined, until they either do one of two things, they capitulate, and stop producing shows with two views and only produce the liberal view, (same as every network out there now)

OR,

They get shut down by order of the FCC for violation of the CALM act, sure at first they will cut them a few breaks, from time to time, they may ever suggest that a fine would be cheaper, but eventually they will say you have violated this law over and over again and we have given you every chance to do the right thing since it is obvious that you refuse to abide by the law.

The FCC will shut you down.

Seems like a simple thing to avoid the trap right?

All they have to do is to abide by the CALM act and under no circumstances break it even when an advertiser insists on higher volume.

The funny thing is that there will still be some advertisers will want to breat this because they “think” that it will make a difference.

In reality no it will not make any difference at all, no one cares about watching a commercial they do not want to watch.

It is really just that simple, you can lead a horse to water, right but you cant make them watch your commercial.

So here is the story you heard it first on Christmas Day, 2010, how the FCC will eventually silence Fox news because they are so greedy that they cannot stop themselves from producing loud television commercials.

Sounds funny almost but in reality it is all about loosing the freedom of speech under the guise of the CALM act.

Humanity is really very predictable, greed even more so, a producer will do that which they know is wrong just to get more advertising dollars.

So that in the end, journalism will be dead and only some weak bought and paid for monstrosity will remain.