TYT: Fox News Spins Net Neutrality

[activa8tr]

Run time: 04:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYQGdpZ3QhA   Posted on YouTube: May 14, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 5   Posted on DU: May 14, 2010 By DU Member: activa8tr Views on DU: 1470

 
This is why we have Tea Baggers!

This is why so many people in the USA are misinformed

This is why America's number one enemy of truth is Fox News.

"Fox News Spins Net Neutrality", title of the TYT piece, and notice how Fox ALWAYS makes Obama look bad.

I'm NOT one of the DU folks here who thinks Obama is always correct, but I arrived at my opinions from a review of facts, NOT from Fox News.

[The Wielding Truth]

1. So the FCC regulation of Net Neutrality will keep the internet open to everyone?

[activa8tr]

3. Perhaps you could research that out for yourself

Here's a link to a reliable source.

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

[The Wielding Truth]

5. It reads to me as yes. I wish I could get a definite yes from someone else.

[MODem75]

2. I bet Comcast paid them big bucks to spin that lie.

[jgraz]

4. If there's a more repulsive newsmodel than Megyn Kelly, I don't know who it is.

:puke:

[guardian]

6. What is the deal with net neutrality?

I don't understand what he argument/problem is. As a consumer the internet seems amazingly open. Connectivity cost continually decreases as speed increases. I'm dating myself but I remember the best available connection speed was 110 baud via acoustic modem. A 56K connection was 'high speed' and required a 2 inch thick cable less than 25' long. Now a home consumer can get varying levels of high speed internet connection for $10 and up. You want more speed, then pay a little more. I've got 22 Mbps downstream for $50/month. You want free then hang out at Starbucks or the University hot spot.

You can buy a domain name for less than 5 bucks. Anyone can host a website or blog for nearly nothing. Hardware costs are dropping like a rock. You can buy complete computer systems for $300.

What is the problem that legislation is trying to fix? Can anyone explain it?

[activa8tr]

7. It has to do with corporations who want to control download speeds

and ease of access, and who want to profiteer from keeping some sites more accessible than others.

What if 100 MB video of Fox News gets downloaded in 1 second and the same from Democracy Now gets downloaded in 40 seconds?

That's the need for Net Neutrality.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Okay ...

Wham! Net neutrality is a dead issue and service providers are free to shape their network traffic as they wish.

Here's your new package:

$50/Month - Up to 22Mb/s

Here's the fine print:

22Mb/s - When viewing Fox News
11Mb/s - When viewing CNN
756Kb/s - When viewing MSNBC
56Kb/s - When viewing whitehouse.gov during a Democratic administration

That's net neutrality in a nutshell. Without it, providers are free to do this.

In practical terms it boils down to shaping traffic in ways that encourage casual users into using certain other services, e.g. using the paid third party service over the free one because the paid one seems to perform better.

[activa8tr]

9. Well done! Very clear!

[guardian]

12. That's the best explanation I've seen. Thanks.

However, as a long time computer user (got my first email account in 1980) I do not perceive an actual problem in practice today. DU seems just as fast as Youtube or whatever. Is there some actual evidence of a problem?

[koski]

14. You don't see it because

"net neutrality" is essentially in effect now, but it is not law.
The purpose of the regulations is to ensure the internet remains the way it is now.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Yes, there's actual evidence ...

As a long time computer user, certainly you understand that whether you perceive a problem is not an indication of whether a problem exists.

As was said, part of the reason you do not perceive a problem is because de facto net neutrality is already in operation. This is the way the Internet was built, but no laws govern this mode of operation. As the 'net became commercialized, various methods were employed to push users to specific websites, usually in the form of advertising or search engine result elevation, but not speed mostly because speed wasn't an issue. Everything was slow; slowing it down more would just lose you a customer altogether.

Now, things are different. The bandwidth has increased, competition has been eradicated through consolidation, and providers are looking for ways to increase their revenue.

The first step was through the shaping of types of network traffic. This was largely a technical matter, not one of great concern in the executive board room as to the type of network traffic being affected, but it worked out the details of how it all gets done while not directly affecting the largest portion of its customer base, allowing them not to perceive a problem.

As for evidence, Comcast admitted to doing it.

I worked in the industry until three years ago, and I've been in some of the low-level meetings and know what these people are planning. What I suggested above is only a slight exaggeration.

[guardian]

21. Sounds like you are trying

to fix something that isn't broken. The Internet is one of the few things that work well. I say leave it alone.

There are other real problems that demand attention.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Sounds like you aren't paying attention ...

... or have some vested or ideological interest in allowing corporations to control the flow of information.

[GreenTea]

10. This is so important & the usual Fox lies are will give bucks to corporations like AT&T Verizon

so they censor liberal sites for republicans ...just as Time-Warner, Fox Comcast, Disney, Viacom etc. do on television and corporations do on radio for the republicans with over 90% of the market and stations owned.....

Republicans want to shut down the loud progressive voices & information on the internet and no better way to do it than as they always have through their billion dollar corporations....WE MUST STOP THEM....FOX IS ALREADY SPREADING THE CORPORATE REPUBLICAN LIES ON NET NEUTRALITY!!

[livingonearth]

11. Notice how Megyn Kelly interrupts any actual definition of Net Neutrality?

She even says "nobody knows what Net Neutrality is" and proceeds to control the direction of the discussion away from the truth.

[jgraz]

13. Ghad, she is so horrible. I can't stand her.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. She also admitted how stupid FAUX viewers are

unusually honest for one of their presstitutes to admit on camera.

[20score]

15. I really hate Fox News and all it stands for.

[Enthusiast]

20. Me too. nt

[Grassy Knoll]

16. People who watch fox for news..........

are probably the same people who get a playboy for the articles.

[JohnnyK]

17. "Everything I've read..."

Everything Megyn Kelly reads seems to come from right-wing blogs. I remember during the 2008 presidential campaign when she would have Bill Burton (Obama spokesperson) on her show and ask him to respond to a barrage of right-wing talking points and misinformation that I know she got from right-wing blogs. She would wave a piece of paper and claim, "I have it right here in black and white" as if her blog print-out was the gospel truth. She makes me sick.

[underpants]

19. This shouldn't surprise anyone who has heard all of the media complain about actually catching terro

terrorists