Slashdot Mirror

Make your congresscritter work for you...or at least pretend to:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/04/21/sen-kerry-i-need-your-feedback-on-net-neutrality/

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?alertId=103&pg=makeACall

Among other things, several studies point to about a 1% increase in business formation and job growth rates. Haven't done a compare and contrast with this study, but it doesn't seem out of line.

However neither this study nor TFA say what businesses and jobs will to created.

Lake County, Florida, http://www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_and_economic_development_aes.pdf/ is the poster child for these studies, but a broader analysis is available from http://www.eda.gov/PDF/MITCMUBBImpactReport.pdf/.

Page(s) not found.

Oh, and as far as the Government costs of delivering broadband, recall that the deal was cut with the telcos to put that mojo all over the place in the mid 90s. Didn't happen, and the score keeping is rigged by measuring "success" at the 5 digit zip code level.

Yeap, the cablecos and telcos were paid billions of US taxpayer dollars to build out but they didn't.

Among other things, several studies point to about a 1% increase in business formation and job growth rates. Haven't done a compare and contrast with this study, but it doesn't seem out of line.

Lake County, Florida, http://www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_and_economic_development_aes.pdf/ is the poster child for these studies, but a broader analysis is available from http://www.eda.gov/PDF/MITCMUBBImpactReport.pdf/. The writers do a good job of explaining ANOVA issues and context.

Broadband supports also improved job quality, well beyond the "service economy" and into smaller scale manufacturing, educational delivery with focus upon the new "trade schools" and reskilling of people, and health care reinvention. The linkages along supply chains (auto parts for Toyota, say, or manufacturing cabinetry in the midwest for New York Apartments) really go a lot better at something over 48Kbps.

Oh, and as far as the Government costs of delivering broadband, recall that the deal was cut with the telcos to put that mojo all over the place in the mid 90s. Didn't happen, and the score keeping is rigged by measuring "success" at the 5 digit zip code level.

Being from Wisconsin, and not hearing about this, I did a little search and found this.

Funny thing is, it was a less than a mile from my house, and probably a week after 2 friends of mine in the area signed up for u*verse.

The article does a good job basically re-iterating TFA with a bit more detail.

But the real reason I'm replying to your post is to point out that this whole corporate propaganda disguised as news thing is not new. Video news releases are done by other corporations and aired across the country on local channels. It's possible the RIAA didn't pay a dime, because it's cheaper for local news to air crap that's already been produced than produce their own crap.

Guess the only thing to do is harass the people we actually did elect. Please look over and sign the petition from StopBigMedia!! http://action.freepress.net/campaign/sbmopenletter/

Kucinich does support net neutrality:
http://www.freepress.net/news/23995

He has also been one of the strongest supports of civil liberties in the house and has repeatedly voted down legislation that erodes away americans civil liberties.

You are full of it. The democrats have given far more support for the net neutrality laws than republicans have http://www.freepress.net/news/23995 , and in the power grabs after 9-11, the democrats have been far more concerned about the civil rights violations. Overall democrats have tended more to vote against freedom depriving laws like the patriot act and resist power grabs and more erosion of your privacy.

While some big-hitters have signed up to the Net Neutrality Squad and while such a squad will keep the issue of net neutrality alive, it does have a negative impact because it reinforces, once again, the existing paradigm of corporate-controlled media. Once again the idea that all we can do as users is to monitor and protest every time the corporate-owned media tramples on our freedoms is also reinforced.

This play nicely into the hands of the corporate media executives who may be momentarily embarrassed by being caught out but know that all takes is a little spin and a little time and before long we back to the status quo. Does anyone really believe the corporations will actually reform as a result of such exposure? Or will they redouble their efforts at masking their actions so they are not as easily discovered in the future? This is nothing sinister; it is how corporations work. Their only goal is to deliver the highest profits for their shareholders, and the control over the data that flows through their networks has the potential to deliver extraordinary profits.

While ever this economic incentive exists, corporations by their nature will do whatever it takes to achieve this aim. This includes pumping millions into lobbying to ensure any legislative threat is removed or minimized. That is why I don't hold out a lot of hope for the legislative approach.

If we are to save the Internet we need to shift the battleground by shifting the focus to the real problem and the real solution. The real problem is the corporate structure which is simply not suitable for the delivery of essential services. The corporate profit motive approach to mobilizing action works well in some instances, but it is increasingly being exposed as inadequate in essential services like health, and I argue in essential services like the Internet.

So what is the solution? It is emerging in initiatives like CUWiN (the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network) is a world-renowned coalition of wireless developers and community volunteers committed to providing low-cost, do-it-yourself, community-controlled alternatives to contemporary broadband models.

For just $499 you can buy a CUWin kit to start your own wireless mesh network in your area. But CUWiN is not the only option. Community networks are popping up everywhere exposing the real battleground. "The big telephone and cable companies are using their lobbying clout in Washington and the state capitals to outlaw municipal broadband systems, prevent competition and undercut local control."

FreePress.org started the Action Squad HQ with the aim of "fighting back against big corporations and their high-paid lobbyists and politicians by organizing to educate local elected officials and build networks in their communities." But the initiative is consigned to the back pages and seems to have stalled.

Why? Because it has hit the brick wall of the existing pervasive paradigm which places the corporation at the centre of society. What we need is not a Net Neutrality Squad, but a squad who sole objective is create the necessary paradigm shift by exposing the real problem and promoting the only viable solution: community-owned and community-operated Internet.

While some big-hitters have signed up to the Net Neutrality Squad and while such a squad will keep the issue of net neutrality alive, it does have a negative impact because it reinforces, once again, the existing paradigm of corporate-controlled media. Once again the idea that all we can do as users is to monitor and protest every time the corporate-owned media tramples on our freedoms is also reinforced.

This play nicely into the hands of the corporate media executives who may be momentarily embarrassed by being caught out but know that all takes is a little spin and a little time and before long we back to the status quo. Does anyone really believe the corporations will actually reform as a result of such exposure? Or will they redouble their efforts at masking their actions so they are not as easily discovered in the future? This is nothing sinister; it is how corporations work. Their only goal is to deliver the highest profits for their shareholders, and the control over the data that flows through their networks has the potential to deliver extraordinary profits.

While ever this economic incentive exists, corporations by their nature will do whatever it takes to achieve this aim. This includes pumping millions into lobbying to ensure any legislative threat is removed or minimized. That is why I don't hold out a lot of hope for the legislative approach.

If we are to save the Internet we need to shift the battleground by shifting the focus to the real problem and the real solution. The real problem is the corporate structure which is simply not suitable for the delivery of essential services. The corporate profit motive approach to mobilizing action works well in some instances, but it is increasingly being exposed as inadequate in essential services like health, and I argue in essential services like the Internet.

So what is the solution? It is emerging in initiatives like CUWiN (the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network) is a world-renowned coalition of wireless developers and community volunteers committed to providing low-cost, do-it-yourself, community-controlled alternatives to contemporary broadband models.

For just $499 you can buy a CUWin kit to start your own wireless mesh network in your area. But CUWiN is not the only option. Community networks are popping up everywhere exposing the real battleground. "The big telephone and cable companies are using their lobbying clout in Washington and the state capitals to outlaw municipal broadband systems, prevent competition and undercut local control."

FreePress.org started the Action Squad HQ with the aim of "fighting back against big corporations and their high-paid lobbyists and politicians by organizing to educate local elected officials and build networks in their communities." But the initiative is consigned to the back pages and seems to have stalled.

Why? Because it has hit the brick wall of the existing pervasive paradigm which places the corporation at the centre of society. What we need is not a Net Neutrality Squad, but a squad who sole objective is create the necessary paradigm shift by exposing the real problem and promoting the only viable solution: community-owned and community-operated Internet.

The FCC chairman is actually proposing to make it easier for big companies to own more media outlets, including newspapers and TV stations in the same markets. Folks need to email the congressmen about this and stop it.
More info here:
http://www.freepress.net/

Those of you who think it's a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to own twice as many TV stations and more newspapers in the country, should do nothing.

free wifi in the city up to 512 - also free bicycle rental up to 4 hours - I can't comment for everyone but this is the sort of service that appeals to me.

http://www.freepress.net/news/25957

Check out how much TV spectrum goes unused across the U.S., and not just in rural areas. Unbelievable waste. Does this look like a free-market allocation of resources? Does the FCC realize it is making earnest citizens literally sick with disappointment? How many people would welcome a movement to just seize the airwaves, creating wireless ISPs that don't ask for permission to broadcast? Bring on the interference?

AT&T takes less time to go from "split up" back to "monopoly" than it takes to make a Star Wars trilogy.

That argument does not hold water.

Shooting the Messenger, busting Telecomm Talking Head Myths.

In general you're right, so compare an area like New Jersey which is small and has a high population concentration to an EU country, and does it do better or worse.

Somebody earlier sent a link to this, and it's pretty good:
      http://www.freepress.net/docs/shooting_the_messeng er.pdf

So if wiring is hard, then the FCC should be encouraging wirelss alternatives to the existing incumbent companies. They should be pushing WiMax. They should be encouraging WiFi (including free municipal).

The US lags because we set up our telcom infrastructure the first, and thus have the most primitive last-mile connections. Throw in some wide distances between communities and you have the situation we have today.

This is Bell Bullshit. The US is a dense urban nation now and the vast majority of people live in cities. The long haul network has lots of dark fiber because our cities are still using copper networks. Ma Bell wants to sell you each bit of data and we are falling further behind despite big promisses and big spending - in short you have paid for a world class network but don't have it. That the US is not first in the world despite having invented the technology and having the money for networks is a true scandal. Most people still use dial up - that's pathetic.

How bad is it? Socialist countries like France, Finland and Sweden are kicking our ass. Germany is right behind us, and half of it's network was made by Stalin. Want to bet on how long it will take Poland, Hungry or freaking Kahzakistan to catch up? You would think the US would be growing faster than other nations but we are not and what little growth we've got is grinding to a halt.

• establish a service rule for broadband services operating in the 700 MHz band that protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider.
  
• allow third-party access to spectrum owned by other companies. This "open access" plan to include wholesale access to networks would enable more competitors to offer services
  
• institute anonymous bidding in auctions to lessen the possibility of bid signalling and bid rigging that studies found to have taken place in prior auctions.
  

Chicken feed. In the 2004 election cycle $1.6 billion dollars was spent on broadcast TV adds alone. Elections

f you knew about the public opinion on the RIAA, why would you take money from them? It seems like the negative publicity f having taken money would outweigh whatever you could do with the money.

Depending on your definition, no more than 20% of the U.S. population has broadband service. US Falls to 25th in Broadband Penetration Worldwide

Can you hear the off-campus voter cheering every time the geek gets busted for thinking the world owes him the movie fix that they have to pay for at Blockbuster?

The politicians do.

http://www.freepress.net/docs/mb_telco_lies.pdf
http://news.com.com/2100-1033_3-5166813.html
http://www.utopianet.org/what/metronet.html

Palo Alto, CA had a successful trial of FTTH, but stopped it: http://www.cpau.com/fiber/trial/ftindex.html

I think that anything over 1meg download is considered 'broadband'.

Would it surprise you to know that anything at or above 200kbps download is considered "High Speed" Broadband by the FCC? Reference.

Actually this was supposed to be fixed with S 2686 which was a huge megabill including provisions for net neutrality and opening up the spectrum for community internet. It also had some nasty DRM provisions. Thankfully it died near the end of last Congress but it will come up again. There's just too much going on in the telecommunications area for them to ignore. Watch for it. It might even be bigger than DMCA.

Wait until they show up in 'news' footage in two years.

two years? yeah right! video news releases are here now without the aid of digital effects.

a large part of the population is decentralized.

Yep, but that doesn't explain why other countries that are even more decentralized are kicking America's ass. There is no appreciable statistical correlation. Plus, even if there were a correlation, the excuse that America is diffuse is a pretty weak excuse for the technological and economic backwardness we're exhibiting with broadband.

America's broadband failures shouldn't be news to anyone who has been paying attention. Several reports have gone into extensive detail on this over the past few years. Check out Broadband Reality Check II (PDF) for a solid analysis of where the US is in broadband, and how the FCC has its head in the sand.

We've been giving the phone and cable companies a free ride, buying their arguments that free enterprise is working efficiently. It isn't. These massive companies have managed to keep all other entrants out of their markets by manipulating the FCC and getting the Supreme Court to buy their argument that there's a free market for broadband. There isn't. We have the worst of both worlds: Government protection of an oligopoly comprised of regional duopolies (one cable company and one DSL provider in most markets), and tremendously high barriers to entry, without at least the broad reach that a government-controlled system would have. We need a truly competitive marketplace, or we'll keep languishing.

https://www.freepress.net/news/19487

In wake of their recent lobbying here in Michigan to get a cheap entrance into video and cable services, your idea seems downright logical. I mean, what's good for the goose, right?

Not mentioned in the linked article is the fact that they also want the regulations removed because it will allow them to pick and choose the areas in a community that they'd like to serve, rather than having to server the entire community, rural and otherwise.

The big companies are partially to blame - no big company deals with change very well - but the government isn't your friend either.

That's a clever bit of obfuscation. Baby Bells have been fighting PUCs for a long time because they want national regulation of telecom. They've been very effective in telling the FCC what to do. State and local regulators are less willing to let the ILECs do whatever they want because they are often stuck with crappy service and few options.

As for PUCs trying to regulate IP/voice, the PUCs are only trying to undo what the FCC has done. By ruling that broadband is an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service" they have stripped away Baby Bell and cable company Title II requirements that used to force them to open their excess capacity for leasing by new entrants. As a result, the incumbents have been able to very effectively shut out competition.

Starting with Kennard, the FCC bought the Big Lie hook, line and sinker. Blaming the puny little PUCs for this is a clever way of making it look like those damned regulators have made a mess of an otherwise wonderfully competitive environment, but that's flat out wrong. Most Americans have one or two broadband providers to choose from - that's it. If you're in a rural area, you're even more screwed. If we had true competition, the incumbents would not have been given such tremendous power to keep out new entrants.

Broadband Reality Check II

The physical factors account for some of it, but not much. For one thing, the suburban qualities of America doesn't give much insight into why it is that city dwellers in most of America still have broadband speeds that pale in comparison to those in much of Europe and Asia. Remember that according to the FCC, broadband means anything over 200kbs, so talking about "broadband" in America and South Korea is really talking about two completely different things.

The "America is so huge" argument doesn't work when you also recognize that most Americans only have two broadband providers to choose from. The consolidation of the telecom market means that it is a losing proposition for one carrier to enter a geographic market that another carrier has already taken. Usually it comes down to "competition" in the form of a choice between the dominant local telecom and whichever cable operator has the contract for the area. You can drink anything you want, as long as it is Coke or Pepsi.

By defining broadband as an "information service" the FCC and the Supreme Court (in the Brand X decision) turned the incombent telecos and cable companies loose. They no longer had to lease excess capacity to new entrants in the market. The anti-competitive measures taken by the Baby Bells in the late 1990s were essentially excused and ratified, and almost all of the plucky broadband competitors that sprung up to bring broadband to the masses were squashed by the giant, slow-moving, ever-consolidating telecom entities.

The South Korean approach worked in part because the government created an initial infrastructure and allowed carriers to compete on top of it. Here in the US, we talk about the free market incessantly, but in reality we have coddled the Baby Bells. They are the severed pieces of the old AT&T, which was essentially a government-protected monopoly for decades. So when the heads of these companies talk about how pissed off they are at Google, et. al., for using "their" networks, just remember that they were born rich. Sure, they built the fiber optic networks and invested billions in infrastructure, but were it not for government intervention in the early years of telecom, they would have been in the same place as Covad and all the other newcomers. Anyone can compete in the broadband market in theory, but in reality if the incumbents have a decades-long lead on you and billions of dollars, how in the hell are you going to get the funding necessary to compete? Of course, with that nice head start, the mutant offspring of the Baby Bells are fervent supporters of free market competition. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Look up broadband prices in the US from 10 years ago, five years ago, and now. Evidence of a truly competitive market? Check prices per megabyte in the US against those in the OECD report linked to below. Something isn't right.

I could go on and on about this, but Copps is right. The US is getting its ass kicked in broadband, and the "hands off" approach the government has taken over the last ten years has clearly not worked. Sure, we're a big country, but the technical aspects are the smallest part of the equation. After all, the Internet was started here. DSL was invented here. Fiber optic cable was first put to practical use here. We screwed up politically, and now we're paying for it.

Broadband Reality Check II (PDF)

OECD report on broadband access in several countries

GAO report on broadband (PDF) - takes the FCC to task for failures in its methodology for determining broadband penetration.

teachers at private schools get paid less, but generally they're happier working there than in the public system.

My high school English teacher used to teach in the public school system and quit due to all the bs that he had to put up with. (What I did learn/develop a clear and concise writng style, thanks to him.) And this was years ago, and I do know its worse for the teachers in public schools now.

A good friend's wife is a teacher in the public school system, ironically the same school that I would have attended, had I attended public schools. (I grew up in a rough part of town and my family was not affluent.)

It's similar to being a social worker. (I used to be one until budgets were cut.) The students/clients have all the rights and the teacher/worker has none. So much time is wasted on administrative bullshit/paperwork, and justifying whatever you have to do, no matter what the circumstances. You are constantly required to do more with less, which makes both jobs damn near impossible, and increases the rate of burnout. And, in both fields, there are the constantly increasing requirements for CEU's--hell, when you are not working, you're taking a totally useless class or studying, just so you have the damn credential that is suddenly required. Plus, the pay sucks. And you have to pay good people who know their jobs decently, or they will say, "See ya!"

My late sister and brother-in-law were also teachers in the public school system. Both quit and went into other fields.

Back to my friend's wife--I don't know how she hangs on. If it was me, I would have walked and thrown away a pension years ago. (Especially after what I heard.) Fact of the matter is that there are many teachers out there who are really dedicated--same with social workers, who battle the stereotype of bureaucrats as they are overburdened with paperwork, and are lucky if they can spend 10 minutes per client. In light of the latter, I am glad that I am out. But, I do miss it sometimes--those days are fewer and farther between, Thank God. The stress was horrible.

Only bad thing about Catholic schools, from my experience, is that they are at least ten years behind the times (I'm probably older than most on this site.) not into tech and have rigid thoughts re: sex roles. A woman taking tech classes? That was rare. I took one computer class (only female) and that was it--teacher couldn't explain anything to make it understandable for someone just starting. (Talked on and on and on, assumed that everyone knew what all the jargon meant--made me crazy!) Had the same experience in college, so I gave up on it. Then, when I graduated, the economy tanked!

Now, as the economy in my state is tanking again, I'm teaching myself about computers and giving freelance writing a shot. There's nothing the fuck else to do.

And if anyone is interested in a net neutrality article that is concise and to the point, here's a writing sample.

Why don't you count how many radio stations are now owned by the same large corporation across the US? There used to be tighter restrictions on how many radio and television stations a single company could own, as well as how many newspapers a company could own in a single market. Do your research before you spout such krap.

WTF does an increased number of "national news TV outlets" have do with the who controls the content of media. Take a journalism class sometime nitwit. The point is, media consolidation is bad not only for smaller markets, but the general reliability of news and information from the media. Also, the percentage of people getting their news from television shrinks every year. This is media were talking about, in all its forms. As an example: Study Shows FCC Media Ownership Rule Changes Would Harm Local Florida Communities

It always fascinates me when people spout such utter krap.
I mean, do you ever read anything besides Linux Journal? Please, do yourself a favor and research topics before you post.

Where you're going with this statement:
"more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago". What do you mean by "television media". Can you be any more vague?

If you had been paying attention to media in the last ten years, notably the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Media Ownership Rules changes of 2003, you would see that the content, the substance of what is being delivered is governed and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of people. Do you understand this? If not, please don't waste our time with your trivial bullshit.

It's the right report. It's also up at http://www.freepress.net/docs/fcclocalnews.pdf

On July 25, 2005, Canadian Internet Service Provider (ISP) Telus unilaterally blocked a Web site set up by an employee labor union intended to publicize the union's views about its contract dispute with Telus. Telus is one of Canada's largest ISPs, with over one million customers. According to one analysis, Telus's decision to block traffic to the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the labor union site caused collateral damage to at least 766 additional, unrelated Web sites. Telus restored access to the IP address hosting the sites on July 28, 2005. (See Attachment N)

We can still voice our opinion to the people that make these decisions. Check these out to find out how to contact your Senator.
It's Our Net - Contact A Senator
Save The Internet - Sign The Petition

Well actually, it started when I first started seeing city-wide wireless internet, and then Rhode Island wants state-wide wireless...

Anyway, I wholeheartedly recommend every single person that reads this to read GitS (if you haven't already). It not only shows where exactly the world will be in a few years, but also give a good idea as to the risks of humans having pooters implanted into their brains with connection to the webbernets (brain and personality hacks, whee!). Or Hell, watch Stand Alone Complex, it's the manga put on TV.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see...

Why do you think the christian Coalition supports this stuff?

most of you seem blinded by the rhetoric in exactly the same way as everyone was about the war in iraq, global warming becoming "climate change," etc. When the governments want to TAKE AWAY FREEDOMS they don't do it by saying "we're taking away your freedom" - they do it by saying "we're going to free you."

That is exactly what is happening now. Right now I have a 70 dollar DSL modem, and with that modem I can choose whatever the hell ISP I want. If I don't want to run windows and play by Bellsouth's rules, I don't have to - I can go with the ISP I have chosen who DOESN'T filter my packets, censor my usenet access, and basically try to protect me from my own selfish interests.

"Network neutrality" is the first step to "network neutering." Once you have set the precedent - once the bills are passed that congress can set the rules for the internet, what is to stop them from taking the next step? They are free to attack anything the press can rally public support around - they can "protect the children" by making sure "public nuisance" sites like MYSPACE or the PORN sites or anything else they don't like get low priority, and they can do it through force of legislation.

Then I WON'T have the freedom to choose an ISP that ignores those QOS header strings and gives me whatever the hell I want - because they're bound BY LAW to restrict my access along with everyone else's.

"Network neutrality" isn't about freedom. What we have right now is freedom. Network "neutrality" means "we're going to legislate for you in the public's interest." You think they'll stop at defending the turf of the giant megacorps with plenty of money for lobbyists? Hell no... they won't stop until they've built the great new firewall of Amerikkka.

To quote Save The Internet Approaching the situation through a slightly different lens, AT&T's path back to Ma Bell status involved the conglomeration of SBC, Ameritech, PacBell, SNET, and AT&T Wireless, at a cost of roughly $140 billion. In the process, their market capitalization increased only $40 billion. Ironically, the $100 billion that disappeared is roughly what it would cost to run fiber to every American household.

Check out Internet Freedom

Oh I forgot telco lobbies have managed to get laws passed in many states that forbid communities from doing this. God forbid actual market forces get to foster competition in the telco, cable TV and ISP arenas. Does your state allow it?

On RMS' page he links to a petition in favor of network neutrality.

According to http://www.savetheinternet.com/, it has already happened with Canada's version of AT&T blocking access to the Telecommunications Workers Union.

FreePress.net isn't very optimistic either.

See:
http://www.twu-canada.ca/cgi-bin/news/fullnews.cgi ?newsid1122447600,4516, http://www.freepress.net/news/13604

http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet

not sure how much it will do now...but worth a shot?

Why stop at Yahoo? Haven't Google and Microsoft also been involved with the Chinese Goverment, block access to information and censoring Chinese diisidents?

A New Jersey legislature committee OKed a bill (to go to the next step) which allows Verizon to bypass the local municipality for cable TV franchise. They have to put in fiber and be done with the fiber in any one town within six years of starting.

Here's a news article that explains recent developments in New Jersey. http://www.freepress.net/news/14460

I was surprised to read that it includes a tax on existing cable customers (essentially driving up their costs) that is used for "property tax relief" and supplying TV services to senior citizens.

It isn't hard to imagine that another bill grants Verizon tax relief in the towns where they provide service to compensate them for the fiber construction ... or to make it cheaper for them to lay the fiber in the first place (by not charging them for street repair for example.)

I didn't notice it in the main posts, but McDonald's Corp.'s founder's wife Joan Kroc left NPR $200 million back in 2003. AND NPR has practically shifted to an all-sponsorship model. You can't hear more than 10 minutes of radio during drive-time without hearing a thinly veiled ad. But it's the best thing going. Here's a NYTIMES article that explains what NPR's management is going through right now http://www.freepress.net/news/14516/ From this article, it looks like NPR is doing pretty well for itself.

I live in an area of New Orleans that didn't flood and have no real use for the city's free wifi.

Acting like a spoiled brat, BellSouth withdrew their offer to donate a building to the city after the free wifi plan was announced.

Washington Post article - registration probably needed...

Freepress version.

The final irony is, of course, that the real place where government funding WOULD be appropriate when it comes to media, namely the Public Broadcasting System is being cut in the current budget, by the tune of 64 million. Public media systems like that (think BBC, CBC, etc.) actually might benefit the citizenry by giving an alternative and less sensationalist based viewpoint. But no, we don't want to fund those, let's get it on with the propaganda instead ! Man, America, your priorities are so messed up.

To compare what other nations spend on their public media systems compared to Americans check this out.

The final irony is, of course, that the real place where government funding WOULD be appropriate when it comes to media, namely the Public Broadcasting System is being cut in the current budget, by the tune of 64 million. Public media systems like that (think BBC, CBC, etc.) actually might benefit the citizenry by giving an alternative and less sensationalist based viewpoint. But no, we don't want to fund those, let's get it on with the propaganda instead ! Man, America, your priorities are so messed up.

To compare what other nations spend on their public media systems compared to Americans check this out.

Is this that kind of games child play that have good and bad prizes. If it is I think a few people already got prizes from Microsoft and Yahoo.

On the "good prizes" side, Google gave China a better firewall.

Nobody with eyes and ears can claim the corporation for public broadcasting was unbiased before 2000.

Bill Moyers has both eyes and ears and claimed the CPB was unbiased before 2000. I know you aren't one that's careful with his speech, but it's worth pointing out. You might be working with a different understanding of what unbiased means (on-topic, like the controversy revolving around what theory means).

Google Bill Moyers, CPB, "National Conference on Media Reform", St. Louis, Missouri. http://www.freepress.net/news/8120

Anyway, I make no assertions about your other points (big government does suck; if they can't control their spending, we need to control their budget). Cheers!

It's called "Broadband Reality Check, The FCC ignores America's Digital Divide". http://www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_report.pdf