FCC to Permit Complete Media/Telecom Consolidation

rhwalker22 writes "Today's Washington Post has a piece reviewing some of the major decisions the Federal Communications Commission will be making in the next few months, moves that could fundamentally rewrite the rules for the broadcast media and Internet service providers. Excerpt: 'Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.'"

Comments

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

fp first post yaaaaaah! I love FP!

one miliion dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

is mine!!

huh?

[TCaptain]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

And how this is different from today?

Re:huh?

[Britissippi]

Ain't that the truth! With Clearchannel controlling every other radio station, AT&T Controlling almost all the phones and broadband access....

Not to mention the TV stations all being administered by a sinister few....

Re:huh?

[azadism]

Agreed! This could become really scary if there are even fewer players in game.

Re:huh?

[avi33]

I got news for you, these *are* the good times.

Imagine if Sony, your ISP/cable company, decides that you, as a consumer, really only need port 80. Their TOS allows them to monitor your computer for p2p apps, and while you're free to 'license' (listen to once, without recording) sony music and video for a small fee, any non-sony media will be subject to a bandwidth cap...so if you listen to non-sony internet radio, you hit your cap 4 days into the month. ...or, you could always try your hand with the other ISP, MicroDisneySoft.

Re:huh?

[akb]

The specific rules which are on the chopping block are the TV/radio crossownership restriction, the TV/newspaper restriction, caps on ownership on numbers of tv and radio stations that one entity can own in a market and nationally. See the Association of Independent Film and Videomakers advocacy page.

Another good resource is at the Center for Digital Democracy.

Re:huh?

[Thud457]

That's ok, the FCC still has provisions for Micropower Broadcasting which will save us all!

Oh fuck!

I guess us libertarian geeks will just have to set up our own channels of communications. Unfortunately, my neighborhood association won't let me set up a tower, and we have lots of trees, so my LOS is severely limited.

Big Brother wears mouseears.

Re:huh?

[Heem]

Climb the tree. use it as a tower.

Re:huh?

[akb]

That info is pretty old. There is a new legal LPFM service, however it was severely hobbled after intense lobbying by industry which convinced Congress to take the unprecedented step of overriding the FCC on a technical matter. The outcome is hundreds of licenses were made available rather than several thousands, mostly in rural, sparsely populated areas. There are no licenses currently available with thousands more applications than there were frequencies.

For more info see the Prometheus Radio Project, they're former radio pirates that do grassroots organizing around this issue. They helped community groups apply for licenses and travel around helping to setup stations, are connected w/ lawyers and engineers that can help, really a great resource.

Re:huh?

[Alyeska]

...AT&T Controlling almost all the phones and broadband access...."

Really. Don't these people remember why we broke up AT&T in the first place? And how the quality of communications rose, the prices fell when smaller players started getting involved?

And just the thought of corporate control of content is enough to make one puke.

Re:huh?

[WPIDalamar]

Now the RIAA could buy the music stores, and only offer their music, instead of the RIAA just pressuring the music stores with price breaks.

Re:huh?

[spottedkangaroo]

What really upsets me... I work at an ILEC in michigan. We do billing for a bunch of CLECs and they're pretty much going to get destroyed by this. See part of the regs they want to axe relate to sharing the last mile. This dereg will literally put hundreds of CLECs out of business overnight.

SBC won't want to share with the 3 CLECs we deal with. They won't play nice, they'll simply up the rental fees until the CLECs are gone.

I don't want to hear any whining from SBC about how it costs too much to share either. We (at our little telco) know that's a lie... Everyone at the small ILEC/CLECs know -- and so do the people at SBC. But people with money always win... *shrug*

Re:huh?

[visualight]

I guess us libertarian geeks will just have to set up our own channels of communications.

Does anyone know if it's feasible to build local wans around the country and then start linking them together to create a "public" internet? I'm thinking about routing in particular. Is there anyone already working on something like this?

Re:huh?

[GrenDel Fuego]

Right now we have companies that practially (or actually) have monopolies in various industries.

With this change, you will have your Microsoft TV Channel, Microsoft radio station, Microsoft Newspaper, Microsoft Internet access, Microsoft Movies. (Or insert your other favorite Conglomerate. ATT or Disney perhaps?)

Then again, we've got MSN and MSNBC already, so we're pretty close already.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

I guess us libertarian geeks will just have to set up our own channels of communications.

The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place.

Re:huh?

[kableh]

Of course!

One promising GPL one is Locust World, which combines a bootable Linux distro with the AODV routing software, 802.11 drivers, NAT functionality, and more. The AODV libraries are open source, and you could apply this to just about any wireless medium. More info about AODV in general .

And of course, the company I work for has a proprietary solution, but it is dependent on using our 802.11b card for the time being. That, and we aren't mass producing hardware at the moment. The tech is certainly there though! Mesh networking with 802.11 is just extending the topology of the wired internet to the wireless world.

As far as routing goes, ad hoc on-demand routing (implemented by the AODV libraries I mentioned above) is probably the best solution for building a scalable network. Wireless links are inherently unreliable, so a pure distance vector algorithm like RIP isn't the best solution, and routing updates on a large network would have a lot of overhead with many nodes.

Forgive me if I glossed over the subject, hopefully other can fill in the blanks =).

Re:huh?

[kableh]

In a hurry, messed up the links. Sorry for the repost.

Of course!

One promising GPL one is Locust World, which combines a bootable Linux distro with the AODV routing software, 802.11 drivers, NAT functionality, and more. The AODV libraries are open source, and you could apply this to just about any wireless medium. More info about AODV in general here.

And of course, the company I work for has a proprietary solution, but it is dependent on using our 802.11b card for the time being. That, and we aren't mass producing hardware at the moment. The tech is certainly there though! Mesh networking with 802.11 is just extending the topology of the wired internet to the wireless world.

As far as routing goes, ad hoc on-demand routing (implemented by the AODV libraries I mentioned above) is probably the best solution for building a scalable network. Wireless links are inherently unreliable, so a pure distance vector algorithm like RIP isn't the best solution, and routing updates on a large network would have a lot of overhead with many nodes.

Forgive me if I glossed over the subject, hopefully other can fill in the blanks =).

Re:huh?

[kableh]

Great, similar to the laws that were axed and allowed Clear Channel to destroy radio as we know it.

Any time a friend turns on the radio is sends me into a rant. There really isn't anything worth listening to any more, with the exception of NPR.

Thanks Michael Powell (though I'm not sure if he was chairman at the time). And thanks Clear Channel.

Re:huh?

[TrekCycling]

That's what I was thinking. We must stop media consolidation before it gets out of control!! Now leave me alone so I can go back to watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central, which is owned by Time Warner, which owns the #1 ISP in the world along with major film studios, indie film studios like Mirimax, around 20 cable TV channels and.......

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If something is owned by Time Warner, how the hell is it "indie"?

Re:huh?

[vldmr_krn]

The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place.

That's a strawman. I know many Libertarians, and I don't know a single one who believes that a corporation can do no wrong. The actual position is that the private sector, since it doesn't have the power to violate other people's rights (by definition), should be preferred over government "solutions" in productive matters. Note that you have to misrepresent the Libertarian position in order to attack it.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian does not mean anarchist any more than democrats are communist or republicans are fascists.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how it is, though, that when you get down to brass tacks with a libertarian, you can never actually get them to admit to a concrete example of a corporation doing wrong, because they always fall back on their circular logic that the market will "punish" bad corporations, rather than admit that corporations acting badly is what the market is really all about.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may say that you don't want to see corporations given a freer reign, but that's not what libertarians say; quite the reverse! Also, how exactly are you going to keep the corporations under control, without a government that takes at least a token interest in regulating the market place?

You are totally wrong about corporations operating in an extra-governmental manner; actually, corporations operate in an intra-governmental manner, something few libertarians are willing to adress. Try convincing us that the DMCA wasn't written by, and lobbied by, corporations, for instance. The bigger the corporation, the more likely to be involved in politics.

Corporations have been bankrolling libertarian and free market think tanks for decades; not because they don't benefit by some government regulations, but because, now that government regulations have discouraged their smaller competitors, they want to be allowed to swoop in and gobble up their surviving competitors. Hence, today they are for "unregulated free markets", whereas a generation or two ago, they were all for "reasonable" regulation and "business-government partnership".

It's all a question of tactics. When the needs of corporations change, I expect libertarian and free market think tanks will suddenly see their gravy train of corporate funding dry up.

Re:huh?

[vldmr_krn]

Funny how it is, though, that when you get down to brass tacks with a libertarian, you can never actually get them to admit to a concrete example of a corporation doing wrong, because they always fall back on their circular logic that the market will "punish" bad corporations, rather than admit that corporations acting badly is what the market is really all about.

Of course corporations miscalculate and occasionally break the law. You're still not getting that the argument is not "corporations don't do wrong" but "corporations do better than the government."

The reason for this is that the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies. In order to get a company to reverse its decisions, people need simply do nothing--as long as they're ignorant of the company's product and don't do business with it, the company is losing money. By contrast, in order to punish governmental malinvestment, you must learn of it and take positive action to inform people of the bad decision in order to punish the politicians responsible. Further, corporations invest money which they either earned before or which people willingly lend them--having specifically determined that their money is better invested here than elsewhere (or having chosen another person to make that call for them). Politicians, on the other hand, spend tax money which they don't have to earn, and which people never decided to let them invest. There is simply much less motivation to spend wealth wisely among politicians than among CEOs. And wealth spent one way is so much less wealth that can be spent the other way.

The arguments aren't simple, and lend themselves to easy misrepresentation.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The greatest period of corporate consolidation in several decades happened during the reign of a so-called progressive.

Huh?????? Clinton was a moderate Republican, not a progressive. He was a Democrat in name only.

Re:huh?

[mOdQuArK!]

Actually, I've always thought that a TRUE Libertarian would say that the government shouldn't be responsible for enforcing the concept of a "corporation", i.e., there would be no legal construct of corporation. (That wouldn't stop people from banding together as a cooperative economic organization, however.)

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course corporations miscalculate and occasionally break the law. You're still not getting that the argument is not "corporations don't do wrong" but "corporations do better than the government."

The reason for this is that the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies.

Yeah, right. The only thing that stops corporations from using child labor, paying 25 cents an hour to workers and completely trashing the environment is the government. If you don't think so, just take a look at any country where corporations have been given almost free reign. Mexico, Indonisia etc... Also, bear in mind that many of these offending corporations are US COMPANIES who would do EXACTLY the same things here, if not for the government restrictions, feeble as they may be. In fact many US companies used to do these things IN THE US before we got some regulations to reign them in. The notion that the free market alone will punish companies for their misdeeds is not only wrong, it is folly.

Re:huh?

[vldmr_krn]

Yeah, right. The only thing that stops corporations from using child labor, paying 25 cents an hour to workers and completely trashing the environment is the government.

Of course. But those are all different things, and they're not all legitimate. Stopping people from thrashing the environment is a legitimate function of the government, since polluting someone else's property is a violation of his property rights. Contracts apply to adults, not to children, and so anti-child labor laws might be compatible with the libertarian framework (you'd have to ask someone more knowledgable). Minimum wage laws are an illegitimate initiation of force because they prevent two willing parties from engaging in contractual trade. (They also cause unemployment, BTW.)

The notion that the free market alone will punish companies for their misdeeds is not only wrong, it is folly.

You're confusing what the "free" market means. It doesn't mean that companies are free to violate others' rights. It means that government doesn't interfere in agreements where both parties are adult, willing participants, and that it doesn't initiate force in the form of taxation.

Re:huh?

[BigBir3d]

The only reason corporations don't run completely amuck is beacaue the goverments won't let them. Usually.

If all the corporations banded together (OPEC could almost do this by themselves) they could overthrow the governments and do whatever, whenever, for any reason, ALL THE TIME.

In general, the larger a body is (gov't or corp) the slower reacting and less "representative" they usually are.

We are all screwed either way.

Re:huh?

[elmegil]

Do keep in mind that they were using the Libertarians', not the libertarians. You and I, we're libertarians. But the Libertarian Party is a bunch of Randroids who do apparently believe that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong (assuming it's held to its contracts).

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

*derisive snort*
You don't know?

</stereotype>

Re:huh?

[Richy_T]

Well, I may not be exactly a libertarian but I do believe *most* of the dogma and that's certainly the way I feel too. I also think that patents and copyrights unfairly give too much power to corporations and should be abolished.

Rich

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha you're thinking of CORPORATISTS, not libertarians.

Libertarians like LIBERTY, including the liberty to freely contract with others, which is what a corporation is *supposed* to be the result of.

When you feel that corps are trampling your rights, it's because the GOVERNMENT has said, hey, we'll change the rules around to benefit you, so you can benefit us with campaign donations, jobs for our constituents, and goods and services. Never mind that if you, the corp, actually provided a benefit to society, this would happen AUTOMATICALLY through the magic of capitalism.

Personally, I believe the heart of capitalism and libertarianism should be the SELF, the INDIVIDUAL, not the CORPORATION.

Re:huh?

[Eenlezer]

You mention all these general laws that would regulate corporations, without the need for rules specifically for corporations. But you forget most of them originate from these specific laws.
Contracts don't apply to children so corporations could not take advantage of them.
And for minimum wage, when you desperatly need money, for how little would you work? In this case corporations have all the power. Minimum wage just is a limit to that power. And don't say you can negotiate a higher wage, there are more unemployed where you came from.
Pollution laws are the only laws that could have arisen on their own, but I bet they would be a lot more effective if corporations didn't actively lobby against them.

Re:huh?

[TrekCycling]

That's my point. The fact that something can be owned by Time Warner and still be called "indie" (not my term, but one I often hear) is testament to the fact that media consolidation of a dangerous level has long since occurred. For companies to lobby for *further* erosion of the ideal of independent media is quite humorous considering they already have concentration of a gross and damaging level.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

That depends on if you mean the PARTY that calls itself "libertarian" or the name for a fuzzy idea that calls itself "libertarian". The party is quite gung-ho on corporations. Some people who claim the name "libertarian" but aren't in the party do not.

Me, I don't know what to call myself, but I know that I don't like the idea of giving corporations the legal rights of personhood when it's not physically possible to also give them the responsibilities of personhood. (The only punishment you can give a corporation when it does wrong is to fine it money. You can't throw it in prison. If a corporation kills somebody, it can't get "20-to-life with a chance for parole in 15 years". In the Dimitri Skylarov case, the individual was detained in a jail awaiting trial. In the more recent Elcomsoft case, the corporation was not similarly punatively treated because it's not even physically possible. Thus legal battles between individuals and corporations are always lopsided against the individual.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

The actual position is that the private sector, since it doesn't have the power to violate other people's rights (by definition)

Bullcrap. If I walk up to you and knife you in the back, then I, though a member of the "private sector", have successfully employed my power to violate your rights. Perhaps what you meant was that the private sector doesn't have the LEGAL power to violate other people's rights. If so, then that's only true because the the laws are set up to enforce it, and THAT's what's currently changing, BECAUSE of the flawed attitude that corporations can't do anything wrong.

Re:huh?

[vldmr_krn]

Bullcrap. If I walk up to you and knife you in the back, then I, though a member of the "private sector", have successfully employed my power to violate your rights.

Yeah. I suspected I'd get a literal-minded prick like you who'd read my words with the least charitable interpretation possible, but for some reason decided not to correct myself. You didn't actually think that I was saying that it's impossible for a private individual to violate someone's rights, of course.

As for your claim that corporations are gaining the power to violate other people's rights: if they have that power, they are government entities, by definition, and a libertarian will oppose their competing with the private sector. You are ascribing to the libertarian party the exact opposite of their views.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

ha ha you're thinking of CORPORATISTS, not libertarians.

ha ha you're thinking they're two different things.

On paper they are. In practice they are not. Consider the Libertarian party's stance on whether or not Microsoft has done anything wrong.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion that the free market alone will punish companies for their misdeeds is not only wrong, it is folly.

You're confusing what the "free" market means. It doesn't mean that companies are free to violate others' rights. It means that government doesn't interfere in agreements where both parties are adult, willing participants, and that it doesn't initiate force in the form of taxation.

Uh, I was replying to your comment that

"Of course corporations miscalculate and occasionally break the law. You're still not getting that the argument is not "corporations don't do wrong" but "corporations do better than the government.
The reason for this is that the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies."

So if anyone doesn't know what "free market" means, it is you, not I. You implied that the free market would punish corporations for breaking the law, when in fact the free market does no such thing, which is what I tried to point out to you.

Re:huh?

[DeepRedux]

AT&T does not control any broadband access. AT&T Broadband was spun off from AT&T and merged into Comcast. This spinoff was done because AT&T wanted out of cable, not because of any goverment pressure. Just like they previously got rid of Lucent and wireless (AWE).

Even if the government allowed unlimited mergers, there are countervailing forces that encourage companies to split up on their own.

Re:huh?

[Luyseyal]

You can also revoke a corporation's charter in any given U.S. state and liquidate its assets. The problem is that state legislatures and judges are either too afraid to do it or don't know that's well within their rights (and I'd add, their duty to the public). Sure, the guys at the top will probably try to save as much cash as they can as it goes down, but it's much easier to track people who are visibly worried. Of course, businesses make business-level mistakes and the market will punish them for those. But the market won't necessarily be able to clean up all the toxic spills, illegally denied insurance claims, and other abuses taken for granted by those who assume some fundamental right to do business despite the human cost, i.e., the cost to other humans. The corporate charter is a contract with the public that in exchange for limited liability in certain areas, they'll be free to experiment, hire people, and make some dough. That contract is invalid when people suffer from intentional abuse or gross negligence.

I consider myself a lowercase 'l' libertarian progressive,
-l

Re:huh?

[Qrlx]

the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies.

You mean like the way the market punished Enron?

Oh, okay, Enron is out of business. But none of the execs are in jail. Looks like the free market only punished the worker bees at Enron, and all it cost was doubling the electicity rates of everyone on the west coast. Enron screwed the West Coast, and their punishment is that the poor slobs who were "only following orders" at Enron are out of a job, while the "evildoers" walk.

The incredible amounts of money that our regulated and semi-regulated industries deal in are far too tempting for private companies to not exploit, cook the books, what have you. Airlines, utilities, and rail travel all need to be run by the government (at least in large part.)

Look at RailTrack in the U.K. That worked well. Not.

While there is much less motivation to spend wealth wisely among politicians than among CEOs there is also much less incentive (or even possibility) to grant yourself huge stock options, bonuses, and multiple golden parachutes and escape clauses at the expense of your customers.

How can the "market" know who to punish when the CFOs at Enron and WorldCom are lying in their SEC filings? The market only finds out well after the crime has been committed, and hence it will always be reactive. What we need is a more proactive approach so we're not always cleaning up the next big corporate mess.

And how do you deal with the fact that private corporations will deliberately break the law, knowing that the fine is less than the cost of, say, disposing of hazardous waste properly? A public enterprise does not have the luxury of performing a cost-benefit analysis of doing something illegal. By contrast, a corporation is practically COMPELLED to consider illegal behavior if it represents an attractive value proposition to its shareholders.

Re:huh?

[vldmr_krn]

the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies.

You mean like the way the market punished Enron?

No. I'm referring to malinvestment. It's not the market's place to punish fraud--that's the government's job.

Re:huh?

[arkanes]

That's both circular and stupid. The idea that the market will regulate corporations is the justification for removing regulatry controls over corporations, but you dismiss instances of corporate misbehavior as "occasionally breaking the law".

You're also totally divorced from any shred of reality or logical thinking with the idea that somehow people "doing nothing" somehow punishes a corporation. You have to do just as much work to convince someone to boycott a product as you do to convince them to vote for or against something, and, for large corporations, you have to do it in similar numbers. In fact, since there's often immediate personal downside to voting with your money (higher prices, for example), it's often much harder. Your arguments only hold so far as you define a "well-behaved" corporation as one that makes money. That's easy. Making a corporation behave for the best benefit of society and not for the short-term interest of it's major shareholders, that's hard.

Furthermore, monopolies, which are the inevitable end result of a non-regulated market, aren't subject to market pressures, especially when they control anything essential to life or, more importantly, channels of communication.

The government's job is not to make money, it's to provide for the public trust. It does that in many ways, both through directly spending money (how good do you think our highway system would be if it were privatized? How much more would you pay in direct fees to use it than you do in taxes?) and through legislation.

Re:huh?

[thogard]

This might be good for you. This will force Clear Channel to go aginst AOL/Time Warner and right now neither have the money for that fight and it might bankrupt them both.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The party's opinion on if Microsoft did anything
wrong is an unfortuante one but consider that
ESR is a libertarian, and he has said that he
does think that Microsoft has done something
wrong but wishes to be punished by the power of
consumer choice rather than the force of the
state. (Of course as Microsoft is a monopoly
there is not much of a choice...)

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And again, How is this different from AOL-Time-warner?
39 million people get thier internet from a TV-music-magazine-proprietary internet provider.
AOL-only memeber areas still have fewer latency/bandwith problems than actual 'internet' connections.
So how is AOL not the evil media conglomorate that can tell you what you can do with your internet? Oh because we have a choice of using MSN instead? or using the baby-bells? So what happens when AOL buys AT&T? or Microsoft aquires Pacbell?

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now ClearChannel can do more than just resell pre-packaged radio in a can to millions of radio stations, they can start buying them up.
and newspapers can be snapped up by the drove by TV and other media conglomorates. how long until we read in the paper, "all hail our glorius editor-in-chief, the creator of the truth and the bringer of all things worth knowing..."

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the Libertarian belief; it's the Republican one.

--rgb

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

Yeah. I suspected I'd get a literal-minded prick like you who'd read my words with the least charitable interpretation possible,

If you don't mean it, don't say it. I apologise for falsely attributing to you the willingness to be honest.

You are ascribing to the libertarian party the exact opposite of their views.

No. The libertarian party favors Microsoft in their various legal anti-trust battles. That is evidence enough by itself to prove they DO believe a corporation making money must necessarily be doing the public good.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

That proves nothing other than the willingness of ESR to buck the party line on this subject - a good mental trait I must say (I don't trust people who don't have at least SOME disagreements with their own political parties' platforms on occasion.) But that isn't relevant in a discussion about what the party happens to put forward as their opinion. The fact that there exist libertarians who don't agree doesn't change the fact that that IS the party position.

In Some Regulatory environments

[TimeReliesOnLadyLuck]

The companies regulate the FCC! They call it "regulatory capture" Now that Colin Powell's son is FCC director, every CEO worth his grits knows it's as easy as 1. Send money to Republicans, 2, (wink wink), and 3. Profit from regulation you write yourself! Just another blank check from the liberals in the Republican party.

Re:In Some Regulatory environments

[Anonymous Coward]

dont you mean liberals in the DEMOCRAT party? Powell is (D).

Re:In Some Regulatory environments

[The Wicked Priest]

He certainly is not, though he was a Clinton appointee. (Clinton is no liberal, either.) Bush Jr. made him chairman. I refer you to his official biography:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biog ra phy.html

("Mr. Powell, a Republican"). He's SofS Colin Powell's son, by the way. He's probably what passes for a "moderate" these days, which is to say, a hard right-winger.

I take it you're one of those libertarian-minded folks who's under the delusion that the Republican party is libertarian.

Re:In Some Regulatory environments

[Anonymous Coward]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed multiple licenses to a single owner in a local signal area, was the true beginning of media monopoly.

It is important to note that this legislation was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a President who was also a Democrat (and a philanderer, and a liar.. but that's another story.)

Commercial broadcast licensing MUST be regulated to insure genuine competition. It's tragic, but broadcasting is no longer "in the public interest". Visit your local "radio station" and you'll see 3 people running 8 licensed facilities, mostly with automation. It's a disgrace.

Re:In Some Regulatory environments

[ReaperOfSouls]

It is important to note that this legislation was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a President who was also a Democrat (and a philanderer, and a liar.. but that's another story.)

Actually the house has been controled by republicans since 1995. And from 1995 until 2001 and now in the up coming congress, republicans have controled the senate as well.

So this was a bill produced by a republican house and senate.

Re:In Some Regulatory environments

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but that does not invalidate what he said about the bipartisan nature of our current regulatory climate. The bill was passed by both parties with few dissenters from either party, and was signed by a Democratic president.

Unification

[grub]

You'll have to start making out your cheques to "AOL-TimeWarner-Disney-MGM-Universal, an Exxon Company"

Re:Unification

[Gyan]

"You'll have to start making out your cheques to "AOL-TimeWarner-Disney-MGM-Universal, an Exxon Company"

Actually, no. Who do you think will own the bank your account's at ?

Re:Unification

[mustangdavis]

"AOL-TimeWarner-Disney-MGM-Universal, an Exxon Company"

Hey, waht about the other conglomerate, "SBC-20th Century Fox-Viacom-ABC-Amazon-Microsoft Corp (MSNBC)-DirectTV, an Enron Company"

(They have more experience with lawyers and court rooms ... and thus, they'll win)

Re:Unification

[Stonent1]

Actuall, it is ExxonMobil. ;)

http://www.exxonmobil.com

Re:Unification

[swb]

Who needs banks? Since you'll work for them, they'll just keep an account for you at the company store, which will be always just slightly negative in balance.

Re:Unification

[the_2nd_coming]

umm...that is why I use a credit union :-)

Re:Unification

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the giant conglomerate already exists, check this.

General Electric -> NBC -> MSNBC -> MS -> duh

You may not realize it but General Electric is at the center of a very large and powerful conglomerate already. The fact that they own NBC is just one example. They own a whole lot of other stuff I just can't think of off hand.

Re:Unification

[Alyeska]

"AOL-TimeWarner-Disney-MGM-Universal, an Exxon Company"

Loser. BP-McClatchy-ClearChannel-Viacom RULES!

(Envisioning the "Switch" Ads to come....)

Re:Unification

[Jace of Fuse!]

They own a whole lot of other stuff I just can't think of off hand.

I'll help you.

It starts with an "E" and ends with a "G"... and that which is between is VERYTHIN.

That should clear things up.

Re:Unification

[Guppy06]

Good! The way Exxon-Mobil supports public domain works on PBS (think "Exxon-Mobil's Masterpiece Theater"), I'd expect them to be able to knock some sense into the media moguls.

Re:Unification

[LostCluster]

If The Company is publically traded, you can buy shares and their for profit from the fact you and everyone around you is being ripped of.

Have you noticed that most of the truely evil companies have large shareholders, but not a true majority owners? Yep, we're ripping ourselves off so we can fund our own retirement in our 401k.

Re:Unification

[sconeu]

Nope, can't happen. Disney owns ABC. Now, replace ABC with NBC!!!

SBC-20th Century Fox-Viacom-NBC-Amazon-Microsoft Corp(MSNBC)-DirectTV, an Enron Company.

Re:Unification

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! The way Exxon-Mobil supports public domain works on PBS (think "Exxon-Mobil's Masterpiece Theater"), I'd expect them to be able to knock some sense into the media moguls.

Ha! Good One. Exxon-Mobil recently ENDED their support of Masterpiece Theater after 25 years. Try reading a paper sometime, they have this thing called "news" in there.

Re:Unification

[ruzel]

Who needs banks? Since you'll work for them, they'll just keep an account for you at the company store, which will be always just slightly negative in balance.

Who needs a company store? After Fox's presidential candidate wins the election, he'll have little choice but to appoint Murdoch's board to cabinet level seats. Once that happens, all this FCC nonsense will finally be swept under the rug (since it will be disbanded), and from then on Fox will be known as America 1. Hell, you'll have high-speed connections on everything to America 1 and more importantly, all your purchases and taxes will be automagically withdrawn from your America 1 account. Double-plus good I say!
__________________________

Re:Unification

[bedessen]

Yeah, but since you will pay all your bills to the same company, the checks will just come with the "Pay to the order of:" pre-printed, for your convenience. No other options are available. Why would you want to pay anyone else, anyway?

It's been a long time coming

[babylon93]

If you whores stop paying attention to corporate "news" (not journalism, more like marketing) you would have seen this coming a long time ago.

Fear???

[mustangdavis]

'Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

Yoda almost had it right ...

Fear leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
Hate ... leads to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information???

Max Headroom

[nrvous6]

Somebody's gonna have to write Max Headroom under Linux now...who wants that project?

reg. required???

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought the editors(especially that idiot michael) loudly proclaim they don't link to registration required articles. But this WashingtonPost article requires a short registration before seeing the article.

So why did this story get posted? Because its a pet issue of Michael? Please explain this hypocrisy to me.

Thanks.

Re:reg. required???

[Hemos]

Um...you thought wrong?

No, we prefer not linking to them, but given that most sites are switching to that, I don't really see a choice in the matter.

Re:reg. required???

[Genady]

Oh give me a break! The post's 'registration' is fairly inocuous (you don't even have to have a username/password). Besides as far as they know I'm a 100 year old woman from Colorado.

Re:reg. required???

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you should tell this to michael, and jamie.

What the hell is the policy wrt this? it seems it varies from editor to editor and what the story is about.

Re:reg. required???

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeding the NYT bogus registration info is amusing, and less effort than posting to /. to snivel about it. :P

Re:reg. required???

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought the editors(especially that idiot michael) loudly proclaim they don't link to registration required articles. But this WashingtonPost article requires a short registration before seeing the article.

So why did this story get posted? Because its a pet issue of Michael? Please explain this hypocrisy to me.

Uh, I use Opera with all the crap shut off, pop-up windows, java, etc... and the story linked fine for me with no registration needed before I could read it. The link took me directly to the story.

Watch me get the parent post modded down!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I think of dirty old men, I think of Taco Thomas and when I think about Taco I get a hard on that won't quit.

Sixty years ago,I worked in what was once my Grandfather's Greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.

Taco always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white under the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did nott chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

Old Taco, he extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old man winked at me. ÒTaco Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game.

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Taco, "I just love jumping men. . ."

"I'll bet you do."

". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Taco.

"I though we were talking about. . ."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Taco lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as browwn as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Taco wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his hightop work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Taco licked his lips from corner to corner then stuck it out far enough that the tip could touch the tip of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never. . ."

"Well, old Taco's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Taco. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiousity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgemental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't beiing queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Taco slipped a handside the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Taco winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

***

We worked steadily until noon. Taco drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed Taco to the end of the greenhouse where he stopped at the outside wall of the potting shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Taco, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in old Taco's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Taco return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Old Taco's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yer sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Taco shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanccd over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Taco. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "I t sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Taco slid his fingers back and forth on his expandingshaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I Ôll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Taco's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set Ôem free. Now let's see yours."

"Why?"

"Just to show you're neighborly," said Taco.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the potting shed.

Taco followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Taco grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Taco. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Taco.

"Yessiree," said Taco, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause Tacoep excerising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some sayyou'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been puling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Taco.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Taco. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Taco's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Taco.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma Ôwouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Taco. "A hard-on is somethng I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on fromall this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Taco what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Taco grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiositythat needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather .

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Taco. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to ajust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." Taco grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

Old Taco's about to spout a geyser." Taco breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Taco held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Taco sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaing drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle foming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Taco.

***

"Cock-tale telling time," said Old Taco. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Taco licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his caloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Taco, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches. . ." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do. . ."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said,"I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging Ôtween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree whan I was seven.

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Taco.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Nineteen almost twenty."

You ever fucked a woman?"

"No."

"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not.

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass. "I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a fewhard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Taco. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Taco. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Taco. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and graypubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Taco moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Taco leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't. . ."

"C'mon, boy. Show Taco your peckeer. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Taco stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't. . ."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Taco. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Taco's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Taco licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd sayyou're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Taco's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Taco toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man.

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Taco. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old Taco to lick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Taco licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Taco might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and procede to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

***

The following day, We skipped the peliminaries. We dropped our pants. Taco got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old Taco's tight, brown hole and massage old Taco's prostate.

Taco bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accomodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

""It'll go," said Taco. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Taco. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Taco's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Taco one more favor."

"What?"

While you're pumpin my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back amd then pulled it up and over the expaded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Taco come!"

I came. And I came. Taco's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's cum in another man." said old Taco. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Taco returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Taco were here.

Last Chance to Diss Your ISP

[burgburgburg]

Get in your shots now. In a few months, your service agreement will forbid such anti-corporate comments. And since they corporations work for the common good, that's reasonable. Now sit down, watch Rollerball, take your pills and stop idolizing Jonathan. Rollerball is not about individuals.

Re:Last Chance to Diss Your ISP

[jc42]

In a few months, your service agreement will forbid such anti-corporate comments

If your ISP is one of the many now owned by msn.com (i.e., Microsoft), your EULA probably already forbids this, except perhaps in jurisdictions where there are local laws against such restrictions. And in the US as a whole, such restrictive terms are legal. Under the DMCA, publicly describing bugs or flaws in any product you buy or rent is illegal..

--

Re:Last Chance to Diss Your ISP

[boardrider]

"And since they corporations work for the common good" Pah! Corporations only exist to make money! They dont care about good, whats right and they dont care about you and me.

Re:Last Chance to Diss Your ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a joke, son.

Well...

[CFBMoo1]

If it gets bad I can always use carrier pigeons to connect. So long as it isn't hunting season my packet loss should be acceptable.

Re:Well...

[Sepherus]

See this RFC on A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

there is always p2p (pigeon-2-pigeon) for those who like to exchange their warez but remain anonymous in meat space.

Media

[Anonymous Coward]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

This is progress. Using economies of scale they would be able to construct truly awe-inspiring sets, and hire real life movie stars to deliver the news. No longer would I have to sit and watch unattractive boring people like Ted Koppel or that fat chick from CNN tell me about the war in Iraq or whatever. Where do I sign up!

Re:Media

[mustangdavis]

This is progress. Using economies of scale they would be able to construct truly awe-inspiring sets,

HUH!!???

This isn't progress ... this is buying out the competition!!

No longer would I have to sit and watch unattractive boring people like Ted Koppel or that fat chick from CNN tell me about the war in Iraq

Do you REALLY want Keanu Reeves and Tori Spelling giving you the news??? They might look good after many takes, but I don't think too many actors are going to hold their own on any good debate shows or if they have to improv. when the teleprompter goes down ...

Where do I sign up!

First, shouldn't that be in the form of a question?

Secondly, the answer is: NO WHERE!!!

This is a terrible idea! Imagine every web page with Mickey Mouse's face on it!! Porn wouldn't look so good at that point ...

Or even worse ... that damn AOL triangle in the upper left corner of all web pages ... and all emails come with the "You've got mail.wav" attached to them .... AHHHHHHH!!!!!

this is a good thing

[Fict]

i work for a *major* US telecom provider, and i must say this:

DON'T PANIC.

trust me on this one. yes, we do have plans to merge with at least three other companies, mostly medium-sized regional providers. what we haven't told you, however, is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo.

we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider. there are also some amazing projects in the works regarding satellite and wireless data transmission. think: global wireless network, anywhere in the world, anyone in the world, no charge. the bandwidth will be limited to 19.2 bps initially, but the coverage will be absolutely ground-breaking.

what's in it for us? .. yes, there is a catch...

Re:this is a good thing

[MImeKillEr]

trust me on this one. yes, we do have plans to merge with at least three other companies, mostly medium-sized regional providers. what we haven't told you, however, is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo.

Cool. Now get them to do away with the contracts and I'll DEFINITELY switch to DSL and tell TimeWarner to "GFY".

That is, as long as the service isn't over-sold to the point that I'd get better service slapping in a 19.2 baud modem and going back to dial-up..

Re:this is a good thing

[Marxist Commentary]

Less than $10/month for you...

$95/month for me.

Sorry, but that's the way it goes with corporations and mergers. What the TC industry is clamoring for is S-T-R-I-C-T reregulation, and it can't happen soon enough!

Re:this is a good thing

[broody]

So what your saying is so what if a handful of corporations gain even more control over the media as long as we get cheap DSL?

Re:this is a good thing

[avi33]

Right...this looks like a great idea, $10/month for AOL...you don't really need the rest of the internet after all (quote from the linked article):

Misener said the direction the FCC is headed creates the likelihood that while consumers will have a choice between high-speed Internet technologies -- via cable or souped-up telephone service known as DSL -- there will be only one or two Internet providers within each technology.

That prospect has Amazon, Microsoft Corp. and a coalition of other technology companies worried that those gatekeepers could prevent users from looking at certain content.

Re:this is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"trust me on this one. yes, we do have plans to merge with at least three other companies, mostly medium-sized regional providers. what we haven't told you, however, is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo."

Sure, with 1GB download cap, no uploading and service contract which forbids using P2P software?

I don't see how unrestricted high-end DSL can cost $10/mo.

Re:this is a good thing

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Uh huh. Oooooooh-kay.

Re:this is a good thing

[WPIDalamar]

Or... since you'll be a monopoly, you'll jack up the price nice and high.

Or maybe that $10/month will only last until a majority of people have signed up, then the price will go way up.

Re:this is a good thing

[jeillah]

we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider. there are also some amazing projects in the works regarding satellite and wireless data transmission. think: global wireless network, anywhere in the world, anyone in the world, no charge.

Wasn't this what the bad guy in the movie 'Anti-Trust' was trying to do? Makes you wonder...

Re:this is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling this post was a subtle troll, but here goes. I fear this because:

1) monopolies have no reason to lower price. I bet my hat price won't go below $30/month, ever. And it will probably end up being more than that due to hidden fees.

2) monopolies have no incentive to improve service, let alone innovate new services. I expect quality will float at a level just high enough to keep lawsuits away.

3) monopolies cater to the center of the bell curve. I'm sure the terms of service on this will be 8 pages long, and will disallow a) using the network for profit [sorry self-employed folks]; b) running servers of any kind; c) using any VPN or encryption [the war on terror begins at home]; d) ban any network security tools [sorry, you can't run "ping", you evildoer]; e) ban criticism of the service [sure you can criticize, just use another ISP.. what do you mean there's no other ISP]; f) contain an arbitration clause denying your right to a jury trial; g) allow itself to be updated at any time and without notice. Since most people don't care about any of this, the 1% of us who are self-employed or who want to set up a server or who want to run nmap on our clients' computers will probably have to pay $150/month and require a business tax ID.

I can hardly wait.

I almost became an art major after high school because Microsoft's domination of the industry made me sick of computers. Thankfully I found linux to keep me going.

If all internet access and content is controlled by UniCorp, Inc., I just might go back to art school. The girls are cuter, that's for sure.

Re:this is a good thing

[bigpat]

the $10/month is the service charge... then there is the $5/dollar per month universal service charge which will certainly be upped to $7 or $30/month by government mandate to "soften the blow" of all the secondary regulations that will be imposed after this supposed deregulation, then there will be taxes and other fees that go directly back to the corporations or to a fund a Senator's pet projects.

What costs $10/month these days? I'm sure we will get what we deserve in service. Does anyone trust ATT, AOL or Disney to give it to us?

Re:this is a good thing

[lynx_user_abroad]

what we haven't told you, however, is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo. we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider.

There's quite a lot of other stuff you aren't telling. There is currently little regulation keeping you from providing that service right now, provided you offer the same to the middlemen as well. What's stopping the deployment is not the middlemen, but the desire to lock those "middlemen" out of the market.

Whetever you eventually deploy for ~$10/mo is NOT going to allow anyone to become your competitor on your own network (which is what this discussion is all about).

First, the client-side services will be restricted. EULA's will prevent serving web pages or offering P2P shares.

Next, the central services will be restricted. Your customers will be able to play on-line games, but only through "approved" servers. In order to become an "approved" server, a company will need to pay a usage fee to the network owner, which means services like BattleNet will become subscription(fee) based, or will cease to exist.

Finally, even sites not on your network will be required to become corporate partners or access will be denied. That means trying to use Google or cnn.com or Ebay or amazon will be impossible unless it's profitable to your corporation.

Of coures the other solution is equally unworkable. The proposal (requiring all network providers to carry all content equally ) would leave us in a world where SPAM becomes "must deliver" content. Who wants that?

The only good thing about the (proposed) legislation and rule changes are that it causes change, which can only accellerate the dissolution of the Internet as we know it, making way for the next new thing.

Re:this is a good thing

[Guppy06]

" i work for a *major* US telecom provider, and i must say this:

DON'T PANIC."

You're tied financially to these corps. Why should I trust you?

"is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo."

As in "It will cost the telecom companies less than $10/month," or "End customers will be paying less than $10/month?" These are two very different things. With less capitalistic competition in the market, the telecoms have no incentive to pass their savings on to the customers. If anything, the savings will be passed on to the investors (higher profits, higher stock dividends).

"we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider."

Which also means there's fewer areas in which to compete against you.

Re:this is a good thing

[idontneedanickname]

Those don't look like friendly letters to me....

Or as Bill Gates once said....

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

"But senator, you say 'Industry-wide consolidation' like it's a BAD thing!"

Oh, and Bill didn't say this. He didn't say "640k should be enough for anybody" either, but the 'net is a funny thing.

Flamebait? Moderators didn't read the article.

[TimeReliesOnLadyLuck]

That's basically EXACTLY what it said. Oops, don't name names huh?

Humpty Dumpty

[Sonny Yatsen]

Well, we broke up Humpty Dumpty (Bell) and now we're putting them back together again. Yeah, the US is definitely in the consumer's corner.

Define Irony

[jweb]

At one hearing last summer, Hollings all but called Powell a shill for big business in general and the large regional telephone companies in particular.

So, if I got read this correctly, Fritz (Disney) Hollings is calling Powell a corporate whore?

Re:Define Irony

[(trb001)]

Irony is the wrong word...hypocrisy is the one you're looking for.

--trb

Re:Define Irony

[steelframe]

Ha! I loved that part too. It reminded me of the press conference where Hollings was going on and on about "Checkbook Politics". Is it just me or does anybody else picture Foghorn Leghorn whenever Fritz blurtz?

Re:Define Irony

[jweb]

This is why I wasn't an English major in college. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Define Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you read that incorrectly, what he said was:

"Damn you Powell, your checks from the media corps are nearly twice mine! Still up for golf on Saturday?"

Re:Define Irony

[LostCluster]

Yes. You see, Disney doesn't own any cable systems, and not very many TV stations compared to others. It's absolutely dependant on others to push its content out.

If the phone and cable companies get more powerful, that's bad for Disney, therefore Fritz is against it.

Re:Define Irony

[sconeu]

WTF are you talking about? Disney owns a fscking major network!! Or haven't you heard of ABC?

Re:Define Irony

[LostCluster]

They own a network, but ABC does not own very many TV stations.

Therfore, they are depending on companies such as Hearst-Argile to make the last-mile link between the network programming and the viewers. If Hearst-Argile were ever to decide to create its own network using its stations to start it, ABC would suddenly be off the air in several major cities, and in the crouded TV field would have a hard time finding replacement affiliates without taking a major downgrade.

Likewise, The Disney Channel, ESPN, and ABC Family are cable networks... but Disney doesn't have a cable system with which to make the last-mile link. If cable companies decided to walk away from Disney, those cable networks would suddenly be devalued with no way to reach end viewers.

Owning content is worthless if you have no way to sell it to somebody.

Re:Define Irony

[eegad]

It's like rain on your wedding day...

It's like 10,000 channels when all you need is a good show...

Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

Internet: RIP

[jocks]

I used to like the Internet,
If I was looking for info,
It was my best bet.

I used to search for whatever I sought,
I used to find ideas 'n thoughts,
But now everything has got to be bought.

Bye bye for now my intertwined friend,
I think we have reached,
Your commercial end.

(This bad poem brought to you by the Corporate whores of the USofA (tm) (r))

carrier pigeons

[dpilot]

RFC1149 CP/IP

Re:carrier pigeons

[TheShadow]

Actually isn't it IP/CP? IP over Carrier Pigeon... not the other way around.

Re:carrier pigeons

[brain159]

unless it was a new protocol for teleporting carrier pigeons over IP connections... :-)

This is already happening...

[MImeKillEr]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

This is already happening with Radio. Proof? Two words: Clear Channel.

Do you have a KISS-FM in your town? That's Clear Channel. They're putting cookie-cutter pop radio stations (all called KISS-FM) in major markets. In addition to owning KISS-FM in nearly every market, they own TV stations, billboards, concert venues, etc.

Check out this link.
Click here and search for 'kiss' -- you'll find 51 stations, all the same format, all the same manufactured pop stars, all the same type of dopey deejays.

Its radio like this that keeps me listening to CDs.

Re:This is already happening...

[akb]

Clearchannel is "just" radio and billboards, they own ~1300 radio stations. And all this has happened since 1996! Before that 20 stations was the national limit. I think the change has been very dramatic, the quality of radio programming has gone done so much everywhere nationally I don't even really bother looking for good radio.

The FCC thinks all this has been good and wants to extend this model to all other media that it regulates!

Re:This is already happening...

[kzeddy]

ya in nyc Clear Channel is running power 105 (a rap station) at a loss to compete against hot 97. When they first started up they actually played commercial free for something like a week. They are actually doing a smart thing and staying away from new music and playing a lot of music from 2-5 years back. Smart bc a lot of the new stuff is crap.

Re:This is already happening...

[Telastyn]

And with this law they can buy out/merge with a nice large ISP (earthlink, juno anyone?) and then make all of their "content" (discounted music rights) available to only their isp's customers.

Not to mention that here in the SF Bay Area (and most everywhere it seems) Clear Channel owns ~80% of the music radio stations, and ~100% of the large concert venues. Making the radio universally similar.

Re:This is already happening...

[(trb001)]

I totally agree, Clear Channel buying everything up reduces cost but also quality. Same with any national chain.

The one exception I will give is in DC...DC101 (101.1) is awesome. The morning DJ, Elliot, bashes Clear Channel whenever he gets the chance. Anyone from the DC/MD/NoVa region can back me up on this.

--trb

Re:This is already happening...

[Spydr]

> They're putting cookie-cutter pop radio stations (all called KISS-FM) in major markets.

Unfortunately, this is what sells these days. they wouldn't be doin it if it wasn't making money.

my big questions is this: when do we see the shift from clearchannel following the market to clearchannel shaping the market to their ideas?

Re:This is already happening...

[MImeKillEr]

Clearchannel is "just" radio and billboards, they own ~1300 radio stations.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Taken directly from http://www.clearchannel.com/ci.php:

"Clear Channel Worldwide (Clear Channel Communications, Inc., NYSE: CCU), headquartered in San Antonio, TX, is a global leader in the out-of-home advertising industry with radio and television stations, outdoor displays, and entertainment venues in 66 countries around the world. Including announced transactions, Clear Channel operates approximately 1,225 radio and 37 television stations in the United States and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Clear Channel also operates approximately 776,000 outdoor advertising displays, including billboards, street furniture and transit panels around the world. Clear Channel Entertainment is a leading promoter, producer and marketer of live entertainment events and also owns leading athlete management and marketing companies." (emphasis mine).

Re:This is already happening...

[dnoyeb]

I disagree that it even reduces cost.

when the internet first arrived I went with MCI for my ISP. Local ISP were able to provide better service and cost.

Big companies CAN NOT provide customer service. They eternally suck at it. The Middle man in the ISP arena has been a source of reduced cost for us internet users, not added costs.

This is the idea the Auto Industry has been focusing on for years. They are always divesting themselves of departments in hopes of creating bigger middle-men to take some of the load off them.

See, their are certian things that ALL the Big3 require, why not let a supplier do that for them all since its the same job. This REDUCES, not increases, redundancy. Consolidation will destroy internet quality, but to me thats ok. This will cause more people to roll their own internet. The only bad part is when this big corps go bankrupt the idiots in the government will give them billions of my dollars to stay afloat...

Re:This is already happening...

[LostCluster]

KISS-FM is the most visible format clone, but if you have a station that does local news in the morning, Rush Limbaugh around lunchtime, and Art Bell at late night, you have a cookie-cutter Clear Channel talk station.

There is no such thing as a major independent national news voice in TV or radio anymore. They're all owned by Viacom, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., and AOL/Time Warner, or they take funding from the U.S. Government.

The only places you find small news outlets still alive is local TV (because the big companies are restricted from buying stations that reach all of the population) and print newspapers (because the big companies are restricted from buying newspapers where they own local stations).

If those barriers are lifted, what do you think is gonna happen?

Re:This is already happening...

[MImeKillEr]

my big questions is this: when do we see the shift from clearchannel following the market to clearchannel shaping the market to their ideas?

I imagine that this is already happening subtly. They could easily not play an artist whose image or music they find offensive or not conforming to their perception of 'family values'. Take a look at the "new" Christina Aguleria. Notice how she looks like a $2 whore now? ClearChannel could decide that, based on her current image they'd rather not play her music or allowed to perform in their venues. Since they own a boatload of channels and venues across the country she could potentially get less air time, sell less records, earn less at concerts and generally be put out of business.

Normally, this would be a good thing. However, no corporation should have that kind of power.

Re:This is already happening...

[the_rev_matt]

Technically, not all the same type of dopey deejays. Just one DJ who prerecords everything. Travel between two Clear Channel cities and you'll find that it's the same DJ in both cities. Media consolidation is the number one reason for decline in album sales, not p2p. Clear channel is destroying music, Time/universal/sony are destroying movies/television/news. Welcome to the brave new world.

Re:This is already happening...

[jandrese]

Well, there's NPR, which barely recieves any money from the government anymore.

Re:This is already happening...

[great om]

What about NPR?

There are two in my market (pittsburgh). Pretty good news coverage, good jazz, good folk/rock.

the coverage seems reasonable unlike CNN/FOXNEWS.

Re:This is already happening...

[LostCluster]

True, but discount all of the NPR stations that are connected to either a PBS TV station or a college... and how many do you have left?

Re:This is already happening...

[robson]

The FCC thinks all this has been good and wants to extend this model to all other media that it regulates!

I'm not afraid. As long as there's a norm to react to, counterculture will thrive. When all you have is spoon-fed corporation-constructed pop, it will just inspire underground artists to work that much harder to buck the system and be heard. By the time Unicorp (AOL-Time-Warner-Fox-Disney) owns all of our cable and phone lines, we'll already be hard at work building our home-grown WiFi networks.

It's a perpetual but healthy struggle. It's like a cultural free-market system.

Re:This is already happening...

[Gizzmonic]

Unfortunately, this is what sells these days. they wouldn't be doin it if it wasn't making money.

Actually, in the last 5 years, the US radio industry has been in a deep recession. Jobs are disappearing, ratings are down across the board, advertising rates have dropped substantially.

Yes, Clear Channel makes money. But the radio industry as a whole is smaller. Competition in most markets is nearly nonexistant. Individual program directors have very little input in these "cookie cutter" stations. Instead, playlists are chosen at the corporate HQ, ensuring conformity across the stations.

As a result, stations lose their uniqueness. People aren't forming bonds with DJs anymore, and as a result, they are listening to the radio less.


my big questions is this: when do we see the shift from clearchannel following the market to clearchannel shaping the market to their ideas?

Like all schlockmeisters, Clear Channel will tell you that they are merely giving the public what they want. But the decline in the radio industry as a whole does not bear that out.

So...are they following the market or shaping the market? The answer is, when you think of musical tastes are merely a 'market', there's only so far you can go. The only way to build a truly loyal radio following is through charismatic DJs and program managers who play music they love.

Re:This is already happening...

[TheSync]

That said, the NewsHour with Jim Leher was recently named the most credible and objective television news show.

PBS gets funding from a wide mix, that includes federal, state & local governments, as well as universities, corporate underwriters, and don't forget "viewers like you."

Re:This is already happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

Half their income is from the government. NPR is what we call in other countries "state run media."

Re:This is already happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Shania Twain isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread?? Shocking!

Re:This is already happening...

[akb]

Hmm, interesting. I'm not sure if you're going as far to espouse a historical determinism or not. Counter cultures are often underestimated it is true, but I myself think that control by corporate interests of the mainstream media results in a society that suffers as a result.

I think this can be seen in how the media differs in European countries from the US. Most Europeans I know are shocked at the vacuousness of US news, how narrow the presentation of issues is and how uncritical the reporting is. European nations generally support public media and the arts as well. That has a genuine impact on the quality of life and character of the society.

I don't think we should settle for the margins. Media and a working democracy are very closely linked. Ceding the mainstream media to corporate interests basically cedes government and society to the highest bidder.

Re:This is already happening...

[EddydaSquige]

They're not just called KISS, they are KISS, the same KISS, all over America. Clear Channel operates cart stations. This means that they have a big building some were (probably some medium sized city like Austin or something) filled with DJ's. All the music is programed by a national director so it doesn't matter if your in New York or Seattle, the same song will be on the radio. The DJ's just make it sound like they're in your town, but the only thing local about a Clear Channel station are the commerials.

Re:This is already happening...

[robson]

I don't think we should settle for the margins. Media and a working democracy are very closely linked. Ceding the mainstream media to corporate interests basically cedes government and society to the highest bidder.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't fight these grand moves toward media unification -- in fact, that fight is critical. I'm just saying that I trust us, the individuals and non-corporate groups, to consistently stay one step ahead of anyone who'd endeavor to control our consumption of art and information. In other words, I'm concerned but not scared :)

Re:This is already happening...

[SpikeSpegiel]

This used not to be true, Back before 1996, there was a Kiss in Boston MA. I was young (and stupid) back then, hence i had not learned what music was. I digress, yet then station was then a "local" station (they had broadcast studios in boston and actually had local DJs). I do not know if that is the case now, as i would never listen to that station now, yet i do listen to radio. I have found that there are local stations that still play local DJs. WAAF in Worcerster MA, and WCCC in Hartford CT both have local DJs. You can see these djs at promotions they run and actually call the station, and TALK to them. And the industry wonders why these stations are the top rated in their respective markets, after all, why would anyone want to hear something origional?

Re:This is already happening...

[charlito]

But that's what everyone is complaining about. The stagnation of the market. No new and innovative acts are going to emerge if everyone's playing shit from 5 years ago. We have (or had... i don't know i don't listen to the radio anymore- ipod, baby!)a Hot 97 here in the bay area as well. And I'm sure they both play the same basic crap (i shouldn't judge, just presuming).

Re:This is already happening...

[elmegil]

Unfortunately, this is what sells these days. they wouldn't be doin it if it wasn't making money.

I think it's just a matter of this is what makes money today. It's easy to make money selling total crap if your cost for entry is so low it doesn't matter if only 1% actually pay. Clearchannel is the radio equivalent of SPAM.

Re:This is already happening...

[charlito]

This is why we need a change in the way the business is run. Not enough small players can enter the market and innovate. That's what sells (imo). Everyone here is bitching about how all the stations sound the same. Doesn't everyone here yearn for the days when you could hear crazy new stuff, and when the DJ's cared about the music they played. I miss the old days of Live 105 (yes i'm sure it was a corporate whore back then, but let me have my memories)

Re:This is already happening...

[MImeKillEr]

Actually, I think they're stationed out of San Antonio. Living in Austin, I've not heard that they're churning out the same crappy signal to 51 stations around the US.

The radio towers in the area don't appear to be any bigger than the local-only stations as well.

Unless they're hiding them somewhere in the hill country (entirely possible).

Re:This is already happening...

[Jaysyn]

So that's why Klinger won't take requests, he's too busy recording his show.

(Actually, now I'm wondering how many Klingers there are across the US?)

Jaysyn

Re:This is already happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

The bay area radio can be pretty depressing at times. But, the bay area has some excellent college radio stations, and you should take advantage of them. My presets are all college radio... and spanish. Sometimes you just need some tuba and casio keyboards...

Re:This is already happening...

[AnyoneEB]

"That said, the NewsHour with Jim Leher was recently named the most credible and objective television news show."

But how 'credible and objective' was the person/organization that said that?

Re:This is already happening...

[skSlashDot]

Again I'm ahead of the game! For me, radio became unlistenable around 1994 or 1995. At the time, I had a 45 minute bus ride to and from work, twice a day, and the radio became so annoying that I switched to casette tapes. I've since moved, so I now have ony a 10 minute bus ride, and for such a short trip, silence is just fine. If I were to move further away, I'd rely on my iPod.

No force in nature could make me listen to a Clearchannel radio station under any circumstances.

I can't wait for Clearchannel to strangle itself; I loved radio when I was in high school (1981-1985).

Freedom will rise again!

We'll all work for...

[sdo1]

... The Company.

What was a sci-fi fantasy/warning is quickly becoming a reality. In the future there will be one corporate entity indistinguishible from and intertwined with the government.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

-S

Re:We'll all work for...

[Anonymous Coward]

and it will be called.... Wayland-Yutani

Re:We'll all work for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Six Corporations Remain

http://www.theonion.com/onion3322/sixcorporation s. html

I think I heard this on the news

[bigsexyjoe]

But they assured the audience that the changes were double-plus good.

Obvious

[Qrlx]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information

Shouldn't that be fewer powerful conglomerates?

Deregulation of the telecom industry has brought us the lowest rates ever! Of course, we're paying fees, taxes, tariffs, surcharges, adjustments, and recoupments that didn't even exist before, but look -- deregulation must work because rates are lower.

The situation with deregulation in this country has put the foxes in charge of hen house.

For my opinion of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, read my other post.

Re:Obvious

[akb]

I think the point is that fewer players == less competition. Many people would have preferred that ATT and Comcast compete rather than merge.

Deregulation led to lower rates in telecomm because there was competition. Deregulation has also seen cable rates skyrocket and the radio dial go to crap as competition is hobbled in those areas.

Re:Obvious

[DaytonCIM]

Deregulation of the telecom industry has brought us the lowest rates ever! Of course, we're paying fees, taxes, tariffs, surcharges, adjustments, and recoupments that didn't even exist before, but look -- deregulation must work because rates are lower.

Amen to that brother! Of course, most of the US is asleep or watching TV, so they'll never notice when the completely lose all rights.

TV companies to go the M$ way?

[p944]

[clip], set restrictions on how many TV and radio stations can be owned by one company, and determine whether a company can own both newspapers and TV stations that serve the same community.

I guess if they let any TV network own as many channels as they want, then they too can use M$s "embrace and destroy" method of market domination by just buying all the small competition.

Not convinced about the idea that this won't stop new entrants into the market place and any that do appear will get rapidly snapped up by one of the big 3 to be.

That prospect has Amazon, Microsoft Corp. and a coalition of other technology companies worried that those gatekeepers could prevent users from looking at certain content

How many consumers would seriously put up with internet content being blocked if it's not the suppliers companies content?

Maybe certain ISPs would be born that are basically a new version of TV channels - only their content but provided for a lower price...

Re:TV companies to go the M$ way?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How many consumers would seriously put up with internet content being blocked if it's not the suppliers companies content?"

About 95% of the population who don't have the common sense to know any better. Just look at how manypeple use AOL for an example.

Re:TV companies to go the M$ way?

[p944]

Missed out the obligatory ;-) after that particular remark.

But without the AOL users...

...who would vote in the government?

This should help my portfolio

[Anonymous Coward]

I invest heavily in the tech and communications sectors so this seems like pretty good news for my portfolio.

Re:This should help my portfolio

[stratjakt]

>> I invest heavily in the tech and communications sectors so this seems like pretty good news for my portfolio.

What porfolio? You need to sit down and have a chat with your broker.

You'll probably be wearing an old wine-barrel and boiling a shoe you found on the highway for dinner.

Deanthropomorphize This: +1, Patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Someday we will all work for The Man

Cheers,

W00t

I know It's been done

[Cokelee]

but, Wal-Mart Exxon GM Ford Enron GE Citigroup ChevronTexaco IBM Philip Morris Verizon AIG AEP Duke AT&T Boeing Paso Home Depot Bank of American Fannie Mae JP Morgan Chase Kroger Cardinal Health Merck State Farm Reliant HP Morgan Stanley Dynergy McKesson Sears Roebuck Aquila Target Proctor & Gamble Merill Lynch AOL Time Warner Berkshire Hathaway Kmart Freddie Mac WorldCom MArathon Oil Costco Safeway Compaq Johnson & Johnson Conoco Pfizer JC Penney MetLife Mirant Dell Goldman UPS Motorola Allstate TXU United Technologies Dow Chemicals.



There, now you have something to be scared of.


Yes I know, they're not all Media or Telecom companies.

Re:I know It's been done

[EvilBudMan]

Sounds like some good stock picks.

in the IT world

[ideonode]

In most companies I've worked with, communications and media are bundled in the same vertical anyway - typically something like ICE (Information-Communication-Entertainment) or similar. From a purely technical standing, I don't think it makes much difference.

From a socio-political position, however, it further blurs the distinction between medium and message. Damn that McLuhan - he was smart!

Re:in the IT world

[LostCluster]

This is the reason why there has to be walls between the people who make the content, the channels that present the content, and technical provider that delivers the channels.

If the market is permitted to behave naturally, we will be down to a small handful of players who own the entire process including the studio to make the content, the cable channels that package the content, and then the communication networks with which to sell the cable channels. This seems okay on the surface, but there's a huge problem.

It's hard to start a movie studio, it's hard to start a cable network, and it's hard to start a cable system / satellite company. However, it's much more than three times as hard to have to start all three at the same time. (If any one component of the three is a failure, the whole project gets knocked off course even if the other two components are perfect.) By redefining what used to be three games into one, they have made it much harder for new enterants to get in their way.

BTW... why hasn't Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings done an in-depth report on the effects of communications industry consoldiation?

Re:in the IT world

[sconeu]

BTW... why hasn't Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings done an in-depth report on the effects of communications industry consoldiation?

You're kidding, right?

Re:in the IT world

[program21]

BTW... why hasn't Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings done an in-depth report on the effects of communications industry consoldiation?

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

This is going to get worst

[TerryAtWork]

before it gets better.

Re:This is going to get worst

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think it will get better?

Ironic...

[Thud457]

You know, if this wasn't so damn serious, I would consider it hilarious that my crazy 'nam vet uncle Frank's paranoid fantasies once more prove correct!

He used to spout crazy shit about the CIA running drugs too.

It's a sad commentary on the world when current events seem like a cheap rehash of "Illuminatus!"
Crap, he's probably right about the aliens, too.

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any rules preventing a private company from blacklisting websites? Can your telephone company block calls from certain entities without your permission?

One Station to Rule them all

[doublem]

Clear Channel,

Making sure radio sounds exactly the same, all across America.

Listen to Clear Channel. The RIAA knows what the best music is.

You don't really need this blues, bluegrass, or other small market music.

All you need it pop, "alternative" and Soft Rock.

Clear Channel, the only way your brain will receive entertainment form here on out.

Re:One Station to Rule them all

[Anonymous Cow herd]

Why not? It worked for McD's, Starbucks, and just about every franchise chain out there... people don't care if big corporations give them shitty quality stuff, as long as it's the same shitty quality stuff wherever you go.

Re:One Station to Rule them all

[Jaysyn]

Oddly enough, the ClearChannel (alternative) station where I live used to play a lot of local bands. I remember a few years ago when Limp Bizkit was a local band here (before they went to shit & Fred's head grew to the size of Texas). They'd also play semi-local acts from Gainesville, Orland & Tampa. Sevendust (I think), Less Than Jake, Cold, etc...

Now it's all gone to shit, of course, and you can't turn on the radio w/o hearing a ballad from Creed or the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Does anyone else here remember when they were a punk band?

Jaysyn

Re:One Station to Rule them all

[doublem]

"Better the crap we know than the quality we don't?"

No, It's just going to get worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Fachism, synergy of corporation and state.

Well...

[Rogerborg]

I for one welcome our new insect - er, media - overlords.

Why limit ourselves to only a few variants of democracy? There are plenty of other options. It's time to give honest plutocracy, argentocracy, timocracy, or even quangocracy a chance.

Didn't I read about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

in Snow Crash

and

Neuromancer
??
oh, wait, sorry.

Those are works of FICTION.

Silly me.

"does Life imitate art, or does art imitate life? Life Imitates bad art."

Re:Didn't I read about this?

[nolife]

I believe the movie "Running Man" shows what happens..

Rule Number 1:

[burgburgburg]

When someone from a major corporation explains that what they are doing is a good thing and exclaims

DON'T PANIC

the one thing you can be sure you need to do forthwith is PANIC!!!!

No delays now. Start running down the streets screaming at the top of your lungs, rending your clothes and flinging yourself into plate glass windows. It's for your own good.

Max Headroom future is here !!

[boy_afraid]

I always thought that the future of Max Headroom was very bleak, but impossible to achieve, until I heard about this yesterday on NPR. Just a few conglomerates controlling the information that is filtered to us, which one will end up being called "Network 23". Great, now we are going to get commercials, called Blipverts, high-speed commercials condensed into a few seconds, that prevent channel-changing and embed themselves in viewers' minds. Unfortunately, these commercials have one tiny side effect -- sometimes they cause viewers to explode.

Great, this way my wife could explode and I could get to play my PC, X Box, and PS2 all day !!

Look out!!!!

[slackerfilm]

The monopolies are coming!!
The Monopolies are coming!!
Run for your life
The Monopolies are coming

(pant... pant...) I really need to get a horse if I am going to continue to do this.(pant...)

Show me the money

[oliverthered]

It would be, umm.... nice to know how much the media corps 'donate' and how much the oposition donate, not that there's anything dubious about the desision.

Re:Show me the money

[akb]

Check Open Secrets, they break things down by industry. The media industry has a special relationship with politics because politicians have to pay for advertising time. Its huge money for them, $billions. Off the Record is a great report that looks at the media industry and politics.

Re:Show me the money

[oliverthered]

Hmm... names and faces are nicer to know, (but take some poking around).

Say Big bobby, took fran out to lunch, and fran lent bill her 'holiday home' and use of a jet.

Bill slipped in a one liner that was 'favorable' to bobby.

I'm sure it happenes all the time...

Michael Powell runs the FCC (+1 Truth)

[TimeReliesOnLadyLuck]

Michael Powell is Colin Powell's son, and he is known as "friendly to industry" - meaning that your media corp can get whatever it wants from the FCC, for the right amount of campaign contributions.

Project Mayhem

[djcdplaya]

Project Mayhem anyone?

Oh wait, I'm neglecting the first rule.

Example of a media company controlling a country

[Lobsang]

Brazil is a good example of what happens when media corporations are allowed to do whatever they want.

Brazil's biggest media company is called "Rede Globo" (Globo Network). They own radios (both AM and FM), TV stations across the country and newspapers.

It's hard to describe the power of such corporations although the US is beginning to have a glimpse of what happens when media becomes a tycoon controlled business.

Rede Globo's ascent to power began in the mid 60's when they sided unilateraly with the military (Brazil was forcefully ruled by the military for 20 years starting in 1964, with lots of torture and deaths -- all with the consent of the US governement, but then it's a different story). Newscasts at that time use to portray any opposer as "subversive". The whole thing grew to be what it is today: A big conglomerate with tentacles in all sections of the society.

One interesting example is what happened to "Fernando Collor", a whacko that eventually got elected as the Brazilian President some years ago. Globo supported Collor fiercely, as the other candidate was Lula (the current Brazilian president). Corporations were very afraid that a left wing candidate would win and Globo used all their power in favor of Collor. Later, winds changed and Collor started to go really nuts. Result: Globo gave all attention (nationwide!) to anti-Collor movements across the country. Lots of dust under the rug came to light and he was eventually impeached.

And if this was not enough, consider this: In the US, when Britney Spears starts singing on the radio you just say a few bad words and change the station (OK, OK, it's going to be hard to find a good one). In Brazil, when Globo wants to impose a new fad, you'll see that on TV most of the time, you'll listen on a few radio stations and on the highest circulation newspapers. You cannot escape the annoyance. You just cannot.

here comes the dictatorship

[elmegil]

Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.

Which is of course what you would want if you were trying to subvert democracy and freedom...a task some members of the current administration have already made great inroads on.

Re:here comes the dictatorship

[thelexx]

Someone had this quote in their sig on another thread:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Mussolini

Needless to say, I saved it!

Re:here comes the dictatorship

[Alyeska]

This is perfect. The Government can't legally supress free speech. So instead, they deregulate until all the media is in the hands of a few, and the speech is then quelled by censors/moderators and EULAs. Later, they'll make large investments in unneccessary technology that will be legally required before you can provide ISP service -- so what used to cost a few thousand to start, now would take hundreds of millions -- thus leaving everyone priced out of the game.

It's beautiful. The privatization of suppression.

Re:here comes the dictatorship

[vldmr_krn]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Mussolini

More information about this (section titled "7 Fascism"). Particularly the following:

The programme of the Fascists, as drafted in 1919, was vehemently anti-capitalistic. The most radical New Dealers and even communists could agree with it. When the Fascists came to power, they had forgotten those points of their programme which referred to the liberty of thought and the press and the right of assembly. In this respect they were conscientious disciples of Bukharin and Lenin. Moreover they did not suppress, as they had promised, the industrial and financial corporations. Italy badly needed foreign credits for the development of its industries. The main problem for Fascism, in the first years of its rule, was to win the confidence of the foreign bankers. It would have been suicidal to destroy the Italian corporations.

Fascist economic policy did not--at the beginning--essentially differ from those of all other Western nations. It was a policy of interventionism. As the years went on, it more and more approached the Nazi pattern of socialism. When Italy, after the defeat of France, entered the second World War, its economy was by and large already shaped according to the Nazi pattern. The main difference was that the Fascists were less efficient and even more corrupt than the Nazis.

But Mussolini could not long remain without an economic philosophy of his own invention. Fascism posed as a new philosophy, unheard of before and unknown to all other nations. It claimed to be the gospel which the resurrected spirit of ancient Rome brought to the decaying democratic peoples whose barbarian ancestors had once destroyed the Roman empire. It was the consummation both of the Rinascimento and the Risorgimento in every respect, the final liberation of the Latin genius from the yoke of foreign ideologies. Its shining leader, the peerless Duce, was called to find the ultimate solution for the burning problems of society's economic organization and of social justice.

From the dust-heap of discarded socialist utopias, the Fascist scholars salvaged the scheme of guild socialism. Guild socialism was very popular with British socialists in the last years of the first World War and in the first years following the Armistice. It was so impracticable that it disappeared very soon from socialist literature. No serious statesman ever paid any attention to contradictory and confused plans of guild socialism. It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached it to a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea. The public inside and outside of Italy was captivated. Innumerable books, pamphlets and articles were written in praise of the stato corporativo. The governments of Austria and Portugal very soon declared that they were committed to the noble principles of corporativism. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) contained some paragraphs which could be interpreted--but need not be--as an approval of corporativism. In France its ideas found many eloquent supporters.

It was mere idle talk. Never did the Fascists make any attempt to realize the corporativist programme, industrial self-government. They changed the name of the chambers of commerce into corporative councils. They called corporazione the compulsory organizations of the various branches of industry which were the administrative units for the execution of the German pattern of socialism they had adopted. But there was no question of the corporazione's self-government. The Fascist cabinet did not tolerate anybody's interference with its absolute authoritarian control of production. All the plans for the establishment of the corporative system remained a dead letter.

Re:here comes the dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

corporations minus the shareholder vote are the equivalent of micro-facist states. In most cases the shareholder vote is meaningless because a chairman holds the majority votes necessary to make any decision. So in essence most corporations are mini-facists states. I say "cool"

Don't need no stinkin competition

[Tisha_AH]

Sounds groovy, Buy your computers from IBM Buy your operating system from Microsoft Buy your telecom/ internet from BellSouth ------------ I have had to deal with all three and they suck equally as well. (BTW, I work for a CLEC so I have firsthand experience dealing with an incumbent (incompetent(BellSouth)) phone company with ego's the size of Montana) ------------ DSL is so damned expensive and unavailable rurally because of the baby bell's arcane, antiquated systems that they don't want to upgrade. They just hope that the competition (CLEC's) go away so they can continue to sell you shitty service through the rest of the 21st century. ------------ Take a look at the tarrif pricing on a DS1 or a DS3! Talk about dis-incentive for anyone expect for a fortune 500 to buy. The RBOC's hate bundled (data and voice)services, they hate UNE-P's, they hate their customers. Just send them the money and shut your mouth.

1930's, part deux

[kraksmoka]

"That assumes that the antitrust division takes a pill and goes to sleep," said Powell, who once worked in that Justice Department division

HELOOOOO! it is asleep already! two letters M$

in the 30's the fcc shifted from a public interest view of it's job to a pro-business view. as a result, enourmous barriers to entry were constructed in TV and Radio.

fact is, the system in place favors the regional phone companies too much already. its nearly impossible to switch DSL providers without a massive downtime and loss of productivity. cable is only as good as the local monopoly that provides it (if its like here with AT&T, not even worth the hassle of dealing with those incompetents), and many cable co.s are providing downstream only links to prevent sharing, with a dial in modem for up, awful. i thought broadband's big advantage was that you don't need a second telephone line.

fact is, the only way to break the hegemony of the regionals is for someone to step in and require that the infrastructure is separated entirely from the sales and marketing, and make baby bells that once again become public utilities instead of sanctioned monopolies.

Re:1930's, part deux

[blaimue]

either that or it took the wrong pill...

Chomsky's Media Control

[Infonaut]

Whether you agree with his views or not, Noam Chomsky never fails to make you think, even if it's just to formulate a response to his arguments.

If you're interested in the effects of media consolidation and government propaganda, check out this short summary of a pamphlet Chomsky put out during the Gulf War.

I disagree with huge chunks of what he says in this pamphlet and subsequent pronouncements. But he has been writing about the consolidation and manipulation of the American media for many years, and if current trends continue, his annoying rants may mirror the truth more closely than any of us would like.

Re:Chomsky's Media Control

[jafac]

No. If current trends continue, we simply won't be hearing from the likes of Chomsky anymore.

Re:Chomsky's Media Control

[bheerssen]

Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at MIT. This makes him uniquely qualified to read between the lines of statements made by just about anyone, esp. corporations and government.

If you are going to listen to anyone on matters of national importance, listen to our nation's academics. They are, generally speaking, that last people around that do not have any special allegiance to corporate/government agendas. Not to say that most academics are unpatriotic, but simply that they publish what they've learned after studying a problem - with little to no regard for anything outside the subject. This nation desperately needs more input from this sector of society.

Re:Chomsky's Media Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Chomsky's still alive? I remember that guy when he was a regular on 'Nightline' in the 80s!!!

Sorry, can't back you up.

[wiredog]

I grew up listening to DC101 in the 70's and 80's. DC101 sucks today. When was the last time they played a local act?

Admittedly, not as bas as WHFS, which used to be an alternative station, but only barely not as bad.

Re:Sorry, can't back you up.

[Qrlx]

You should be listening to 89.3 WPFW. No corporate sponsors, no ads. Occasionally they ahve a pledge drive, during which time you can listen to HFS again and remember how horrible it was listening to commerical radio.

Wipe my greymatter off the moniter

[sam_handelman]

What we slashdotters need to do is to get involved in supporting the campaigns of legislators with the courage to speak out against corporate excesses, like.... Fritz Hollings?

And, when a legislator sells out, we need to join together in working toward their ouster, like... Fritz

Damn, my head exploded again.

Anyway, my point is this - Disney is not the worst corporation out there. Fritz' may be 0wn3d by Disney, but at least he doesn't belong to AT&T. I may not like Disney's plans for DRM, but they've never sponsored the overthrow of a national government (ITT, the predecessor of AT&T, aided Pinochet in establishing a military dictatorship in Chile. Search the page for ITT.)

So, would AT&T abuse their power to suborn Democracy? They already have. I sure don't trust them.

Re:Wipe my greymatter off the moniter

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T has nothing to do with ITT. AT&T affiliated companies (meaning, companies which are made up of formerly AT&T employees and divisions) include NCR, Lucent, Comcast, AT&T Wireless, and the Regional Bell Companies.

The predecessor of AT&T was "The Bell Telephone Company" organized in 1877.
AT&T was formed as a subsidiary of "American Bell" in 1885 (American Bell had been formed by the consolidation of the Bell Telephone Company with Western Electric. In 1899, AT&T became the parent company of the entire Bell system.

Feel free to slam ITT, but leave AT&T out of it.
Thanks...

David Barak
http://makela.ws/

fcc misguided ?

[bhawbaker]

first fcc denies Dish-DirecTV merge, then they allow this ?

It's the Democratic Party, stupid...

[MamasGun]

I hate how Republicans and those to the right of Republicans spit out "The Democrat Party" as if it was a curse word. In fact, in an "issue" ad funded by Soft Money that the RNC ran during the 2000 Presidential campaign, the word Democrats was associated with the word RATS.

They won dirty, but they won, and that's what counts, right? Here's an article from the CNN site dating back from when that happened: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/13/ bush.ad/

Re:It's the Democratic Party, stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, democrats are rats. They are precisely like the greedy vermin who steal and devour a farmer's hard earned crops. Of course, the Republicans are rats too; they just promise to steal a little less than the Democrats do.

Re:It's the Democratic Party, stupid...

[Mantrid]

Yeah, and Democrats are *so* nice when they talk about Republicans. Give me a break. What party do I support? PC. heh.

Re:It's the Democratic Party, stupid...

[mythr]

Things like these have brought me to conclude that the only good party is the LAN party. Anyone interested in joining? ;)

Bah, none of this really matters...

[bahwi]

None of this really matters, it's just to reduce paperwork. Think about it, 5 companies, working together, or one big company? One big company = less paperwork. Now that the Microsoft Project(tm) has shown that the people really don't mind full blown monopolies as long as they keep us under control, it's not a problem and now they want to do it. Everyone knows all the major companies are owned and run by the Illumana%!@#$ NO CARRIER

Oops

[bahwi]

What I meant to say was that I think this is a good thing and that we should trust our corporations. There is no one controlling everything behind our backs, we are a capitalist society where one can rise to the top. I for one will trust the corporations with my soul.

The Truth About Reality TV

[Anonymous Coward]

For the past few years, television audiences both inside the United States and abroad have been fascinated with dozens of so-called "reality" programs, including "Survivor", "Big Brother", and "Temptation Island", to name a few. Most people would probably tell you that the public interest in these types of programs is due to the inherent voyeurism of today's audiences. They would tell you that these programs are (mostly) harmless and that the television networks promote them because they draw ratings and advertising dollars.

But is there more to the story?

A Lesson From History

Before we talk about reality TV, let's take a brief voyage into United States history.
Let's talk about Social Security. A century ago, the idea that the government would take a cut of everybody's paycheck and redistribute it to retired people was unthinkable. It was simply not an idea that could exist in a decent society. It violated every principle that this country had been founded upon. (Please note: I am not saying that taking care of the elderly is a bad idea! I am only pointing out that stealing from people's paychecks is not the way to do it; traditionally, elderly family members were cared for by their families. The establishment of Social Security was probably the biggest factor in the dissolution of the traditional extended family and the value system thereof, but that's a story for another day.)

So if the idea was unthinkable a century ago, why are we stuck with it today? The answer is simple: manipulated circumstances. The stock market crash of 1929 ushered in an era of American history that we call the Great Depression. This was a crippling, decade-long period of economic hardship, and it was during this period that Social Security, along with other leftist government programs such as the Work Projects Administration were born. The American people and Congress (who ten years previous would have laughed themselves sick at the idea of enacting such clearly socialist programs) had been beaten into submission. And so it came to pass that on August 14, 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law.

So was the Social Security Act a reasonable and legitimate reaction to some tough times for the United States? On its face, it may seem so. But there is a growing consensus among economists and historians that the Great Depression was not as "accidental" as people were led to believe. There is ample evidence that Roosevelt and the leftist orthodoxy that was pulling his strings leaned on the Federal Reserve to engineer the market crash of 1929, thus plunging the country into chaos. Roosevelt and his ilk (correctly) deduced that they would have to desensitize people to the socialist agenda before they would ever accept it. They desensitized the country by intentionally placing it in its worst economic crisis ever, and eventually their agenda won.

At this point, you may be scratching your head and wonder what the point of all of this is (and what it has to do with reality television.) The point is simple: Government extremists have a history of manipulating the media and the markets in order to get people to gradually accept ideas that they would otherwise reject whole-heartedly. In the 1930s, it was Soviet-style wealth redistribution.

Fast-Forward 65 Years

Welcome to America, 2001. Unfortunately, the threat that we face in this day and age is far more ominous than the big-government socialists of the 1930s. Today, our liberty, our essence, and our basic sense of being are being threatened by authoritarian Communists who seek to abolish all rights to individual privacy and freedom of speech. Being the media-savvy Red bastards that they are, they have chosen "reality TV" as their method of infiltration. Make no mistake about it: The sole purpose of "reality TV" is to desensitize Americans to Communism.

Now, you might think this is ludicrous; you might have been lulled into a false sense of security by the people who claim that Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell. But the fact of the matter is that there are numerous links between "reality TV" and Communism, and there is plenty of evidence that America's governmental agencies are colluding with Communists in order to promote this type of "entertainment" among the general population. Here are a few of the more egregious examples:

Mark Burnett, the executive producer of "Survivor", is currently working closely with the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to develop a new television series called Langley, about the ins and outs of life as an Agent. Americans should be concerned about the most successful reality TV producer working hand-in-hand with the most shadowy elements of our nation's government.

Les Moonves, the president of CBS Television (home of "Survivor" and "Big Brother") was recently in Cuba having lunch with Fidel Castro. He was accompanied by many representatives from the American media. Curiously, the fact that so many American media moguls were "chumming it up" with Castro was not widely reported. Perhaps it is because these same media moguls control what we are allowed to see and what we are not?

The Fox broadcasting network, which has been home to reality programs such as "Boot Camp" and the afore-mentioned "Temptation Island", is owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch. In order to support his profitable, conservative-leaning Fox News Channel, Murdoch has claimed (in recent years) to hold traditionalist views. However, the truth about Murdoch is far from traditional; the truth is downright frightening. Murdoch is a self-described "socialist" who supported the presidential campaign of Al Gore and donates heavily to the Chinese Communists. In fact, Murdoch went so far as to donate $1,000,000 towards a biography of the late Chinese dictator Deng Xiaoping!

I've been in bars with people who are watching the "Big Brother" program. All the while, these people are mindlessly chatting with each other, asking inane questions such as "Should George confront Cassandra about such-and-such" and "Are Will and Shannon going to have sex?" They involve themselves with the day-to-day activities of total strangers to the last tiny detail, and it never once dawns on them that there is something inherently wrong with what they are doing.
Perhaps that's because it's the way that CBS and its army of AK-47-toting Communist butchers want it. They take the most degrading robbery of basic privacy rights, wrap it up into a slick media presentation with a snappy theme song, and package it as entertainment for mass consumption. And people eat it up. They can't get enough of it. It never once crosses their mind that this is bad, that these cameras should not be running. All they want is the scenery; the human "drama" that is unfolding in front of their eyes. They completely forget about the cameras.

Let me pose the question: What happens (say) ten years down the line when the FBI requests that cameras be installed in private homes so that they can "protect" Americans against domestic violence? They will tell gullible American women that if they are ever "beaten" by their husbands for disobedience, they will have clear and incontravertible evidence that can be presented in court. Women, being the emotional and illogical creatures that they are, will most likely be in favor of it.

And the cameras will go up.

At this point it should be clear that the reality TV "fad" is in fact an intentionally-engineered ploy by Communist elements of our federal government and national media organizations. The goal is to make surveillance cameras in every home seem acceptable .. even normal. Once the cameras are up, the monitoring will begin. Disagree with something that the government does? The next knock that you hear on your door will most likely be the Marxist death squad, out to escort you to the nearest "retraining" camp.

Conclusion

This war is not yet lost. The main battle may be well underway, but its outcome is far from certain. Poor ratings for the "Big Brother 2" program are ample evidence that this plot is not registering with the American people as well as the Communists would have liked. So let's keep it up. Let your friends and neighbors know that true Americans do not watch this type of vermin-infested filth. Point out that liberty is the soul's desire to breathe free, and that this is not something that can be done under the thumb of a totalitarian Communist regime.

Most importantly, remind people that freedom does not come without a price. Hundreds of thousands of brave patriots have paid the ultimate price to guarantee that you and I have certain basic freedoms (such as the freedom to write this article!) and it would be a shame to spit in the collective faces of our veterans of war and throw everything away in the name of sleazy television. Our freedoms may be dwindling, but you still have the freedom of personal choice. Here is what I suggest: Turn the television off. Play a round of golf. Read the Bible. Catch up on some yard work. But don't watch reality TV. Because if you do, don't say I didn't warn you when you see the tanks rolling down Main Street.

I can see it now....

[DailyGrind]

One day I will wake up and unable to open the electronically controlled front door to my condo I will have to call North East America Inc support center....

me: dial
phone: Welcome to North East America Inc... your call is important to us... etc.. press 01 for support with your phone; 02 for support with cable; 03 for support with your internet; 04 for support with your climate control; .....etc.... 99 if you cannot open your door.

me: 99... wait...
phone: sir, your buildings central waste monitoring facility has detected trace amounts of marijuana. as you know drugs fund terrorism and terrorism is un-American. as a precaution we have temporarily detained all occupants pending an investigation

me: what! ... I am going to e-mail my Congressman about this...
phone: sir, the central e-mail monitoring facility has detected that your e-mails contain words like "high", "da bomb", and "explosive" and may refer to un-American activities and therefore your e-mail has been suspended...

me: nuts!, I am moving out west!
phone: sir, we have logged your request and are sending you a Western America Inc transfer form. There is a $20,000 transfer fee.

me: thats it I am moving to Canada!
phone: sir, only terrorists live in Canada... please stand by security services are on the way...we have restricted your TV to receive Lawyer commercials you may wish to watch while you wait... have a nice day.

Re:I can see it now....

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you going to watch the Lawyer commercials on your TV when you can't get into your condo? What a dystopia!

Re:I can see it now....

[GigsVT]

The whole point was he couldn't get *out* of the condo.

TWO WORDS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rudi Bakhtiar

Largest Media Conglomerates

[Kiev()]

AOL TW Viacom Disney News Corp Bertelsmann Vivendi Universial Sony

The rumor about Britney

[burgburgburg]

The rumor about Britney Spears concerning ClearChannel is that she since she did not have ClearChannel book/control her latest tour, ClearChannel radio stations "independently" decided her newest album did not deserve to be on the hot play lists.

Considering the lack of discernable quality difference in her albums (take that as you will), this seems a plausible explanation.

Re:Example of a media company controlling a countr

[LostCluster]

One tactic in radio avertising is called "buying the market". That is the act of a single sponsor buying a commercial spot that is scheduled to be run at roughly the same time on every major statiion in the city. No matter what station you listen to, or even if you hop between stations, there's likely no way you'll not hear this sponsor's message that day.

This is a pretty rare tactic because it's both expensive and hard to do. (You have to buy time from several different companies, and some stations might not have an ad slot available where you want it.) However, if the same media company controls all of the signals that you listen to, it's very easy for a sponsor to deal with one company to push whatever message it wants out to you.

Irony also applies

[JohnDenver]

insofar as we usually don't expect corporate whores calling other corporate whores, a corporate whore.

Hypocrisy is usually ironic.

Re:Irony also applies

[radish]

Hypocrisy is usually ironic.


Don't know about you, but I usually expect hypocritical behaviour from people with power, thus it is certainly not ironic when it occurs.

Re:Irony also applies

[RollingThunder]

Indeed, cf: cops can scoop trash without a search warrant, but not reporters.

Re:Irony also applies

[JohnDenver]

Irony is also relative from person to person. One man's irony is another man's common sense.

Many people also believe that Sen. Hollings and George W. are decent folk just trying to save the world from pirates and evil-doers.

Just because I see through the horse-shit, you see through the horse-shit, doesn't mean the rest of these people see through the horse-shit.

Traditional expectations would rule it's ironic.

Competition is dying already :(

[Ded Bob]

As an ex-DirecTV DSL customer, I am seeing it disappear as we speak. The only provider in my area is now SBC. Whether or not the FCC does anything, I see competition as being dead.

BTW, I would love the FCC to get rid of one regulation: the idiotic regulation that requires me to cancel DSL service before I can get another provider to even take an order. The same group comes out to disconnect me as will connect me five days later. I want to see down-times of hours not days nor weeks (if unlucky). How can people try out different competitors easily if they will have to wait so long?

What is the public benefit for consolidation?

[max_entropy99]

I have yet to hear a rational explaination of the public benefits of consolidation in this industry. It just looks like raw greed and the ability of weild greatly increased influence over the public's perception of reality that is the crux of what these companies are seeking. BTW in the DSL arena, it could be argued that the most of the national infrastructure of last mile copper is owned by the public as monopoly rights were granted to install it long ago, and it has been paid for many times over. Most of it has already been depreciated to ZERO book value and our telecom bills now merely provide for maintenance of this asset.

By, at the low level. . .

[kfg]

changing away from the telegraph billing model?

KFG

canada shows US the way

[violently_ill]

i just spent two weeks vacationing in snowy canada (i live in california) and while i was there i had the opportunity to learn about canada's internet. in short, it kicks ass. it is very fast, very resilient, very regulated, and most importantly, very cheap. the canadian government has been developing and regulating broadband since before anyone knew what broadband was and their investment has surely paid off. how does digital cable service AND broadband internet for $40/month sound? that's 40 candian dollars, or a little over $30 dollars american currency. not only that, but it's purported to be more resilient than the internet2 project that is just barely getting off the ground in the states. canada's regulated deployment scheme has made it one of the most wired nations in the world. we could learn a lot from them.

Re:canada shows US the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but deregulation is good. It allows Enron to commit crimes against Californians. If you propose regulation in the US you are proposing destroying the fabric of the universe!

Remember, Rush Limbaugh is always right, and he says:
Deregulation gooooooooooooooooooood. Regulation Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Re:canada shows US the way

[fizban]

God damn it! This puts me over the edge. I've been meaning to join our northerly brethren for a while now and I think this just about gives me the final reason to make my promise good. Onward Kanooks! Eh?

Unregulated Capitalism is the EVIL of the world.

Re:canada shows US the way

[TheSync]

Internet2 is not a network for home users, it is a research network to examine what you can do with a very, very fast IPV6 network. It is also incredibly underutilized, and only links universities and research institutions.

Re:canada shows US the way

[charlito]

And they're the home of hockey!

Re:canada shows US the way

[violently_ill]

1) i understand that internet2 is only in a few universities right now and will never be available to the general public (although some of the technology might be). my point was that while we americans were patting ourselves on the back for how technologically sophisticated we are, canada was quietly reminding us their networks were of equal or greater stability. improved resiliency was one of internet2's most touted features. of course, having dedicated fiber laid between university A and college B will still make for a faster connection.

2) while i'm quite certain about the $40/month advertised price, i didn't investigate it too thoroughly, so it's likely that there's some kind of catch. i think the name of the company was shaw cable and i was in calgary.

Re:canada shows US the way

[tfoss]

Check out this guy.

-Ted

Re:canada shows US the way

[fizban]

Thanks. That was awesome.

but yet....

[/dev/trash]

EchoStar is turned down, when it wants to give me and millions of other people local channels.

I don't want cable, I want DISH.

Bad for Democracy

[bill_mcgonigle]

In this scenario, a sufficiently motivated group could purchase all the media outlets in an area, effectively controlling the flow of information to the populous. Then they could start spreading false information without any balances.

Can you imagine a society where if you spend enough money anybody can get elected?

Oh.

note: satellite/cable and the Internet are moderating forces, but they are not free (federally subsidized), which is why this is a problem.

Re:Bad for Democracy

[TheSync]

In this scenario, a sufficiently motivated group could purchase all the media outlets in an area, effectively controlling the flow of information to the populous....satellite/cable and the Internet are moderating forces, but they are not free (federally subsidized)

In the absence of government regulation, what you say is impossible. However, it may also require state and local governments to end regulation (i.e. forced monopolies) of cable and telephone service as well.

But even today, cable isn't free, yet the majority of Americans receive their television programming over cable.

Even if someone bought up all the AM & FM radio stations in an area, you can still listen to Sirius and XM radio, not to mention shortwave!

Plus the Internet will continue to become a very powerful force for balance. Dial-up is cheaper than cable in most markets (as it should be, it is lower bandwidth).

And there is always public television/radio...

Re:Bad for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even if someone bought up all the AM & FM radio stations in an area, you can still listen to Sirius and XM radio, not to mention shortwave!"

Yeah, keep it up and we'll all end up listening to shortwave!

Posted as Annonymous Coward because some people don't get irony!
"Wolverines!"

Re:Bad for Democracy

[ps_inkling]

By FCC regulations, when ownership of a station changes or the license is due for renewal, the radio or television station must give sufficient notice for public comment.

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

The usual response from the masses

[salesgeek]

In the end, this consolidation will serve only to preserve the media industry and the telecom industry so it can prepare for the coming of age of low frequency ultra wideband radio technology. LF UWB is a carrierless peer-to-peer technology which has the potential to break the last mile barrier. Imagine you little wireless ethernet access point with a 150 mile range. I don't think this will be good for cable companies and the local phone company.

Of course, this all could just be an evil plot.

$G

Not a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole world will turn into one big World Economic Consortium. Eventually one of them will succeed in creating a SHODAN, and then history will pretty much write itself from there.

Either that, or one of the cloned Silencers will go nuts and start "working against the government."

"How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?"

What's the big deal?

[c0d3h4x0r]

'Opponents of the proposed rules fear that, taken together, they ultimately could lead to a few powerful conglomerates controlling the flow of electronic information, from programming of television and radio news and entertainment to owning the pipes that connect people to the Internet.'

That's the way it already is, so what's the big deal? Anything that removes the totally nonsensical federal restriction that splits DSL providers in half (the physical line provider and the IP provider can't be the same company, can't share records, etc, and thus DSL is pure set up and customer service hell) would be a welcome change.

I don't need variety. I just need shit that works right end-to-end. If it takes a monopoly or an ogilopoly to pull that off, then so be it.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you been smoking? The law as it currently stands doesn't prohibit your phone company from providing its own ISP service. It just requires it to make its lines available to competitive services as well.

In Seattle, you can sign up with Qwest for ADSL with any number of large and small back-end ISP's (there's a list on their Web site, although it's about as easy to find as the freebie player download on Real's site). Or, you can have Covad/Speakeasy hook you up for SDSL renting a dedicated copper pair from Quest. Or...you can get "one-stop shopping" residential ADSL from Qwest, except they've now switched all their residential customers to MSN. If Powell gets his way, it'll be just like what the Tauzin bill would have done--nothing will stop Qwest from cutting off all the independent ISP's (or squeezint them out by charging exhorbitant rates). Then it will be really simple, because we'll have just one choice. Is that where you want to go today?

Re:What's the big deal?

[c0d3h4x0r]

You didn't read what I wrote, or else you misinterpreted the issue.

I never said that Verizon was prohibited from providing its own ISP service, for instance. What I did say is that the physical line provider and the IP provider are required by federal law to be distinct companies even if they are owned by the same parent company. That's why "Verizon DSL" is (and has to be) a separate company from "Verizon" the phone company: the phone company provides the physical DSL connectivity, while "Verizon DSL" is just the ISP.

They might both be owned ultimately by Verizon, but they are not permitted to share customer records or to physically or operationally be part of the same organization. That's why when you call DSL customer support, they never know who's really responsible for the problem you're having (is it a physical line problem, or maybe an ISP problem, or maybe both?), and you have to get transfered back and forth across the divide and re-explain your situation and all your customer identification all over again from scratch.

There is no analagous restriction on cable internet providers, which is why the setup time and support are both lightyears better for cable modem, despite it being an inferior technology.

too vague, no guarantee

[zogger]

--this could be all well and good or just a troll. No way to tell, but I'll bite anyway. The last time I heard something similar was from the cable companies when they were granted all their local monopoly licenses. It was supposed to be "ad free" cable, ie, "no commercials". That lasted about two minutes, tops. And you still can't buy what you want by individual channel, it's always been a take it or leave it "package deal" that no one is ever happy with.

The default "consumer" mindset now (just accept it, it's more or less a general truism) is "we" just plain don't trust any large corporations to ever tell the truth on anything. We DO trust them to cook the books, pay high level executives obscene amounts of money for basically not a lot of "work",to do whatever it takes to avoid paying pensions or shareholders once the stock money is spent, to just constantly run businesses into the hole and declare bankruptcy and skip with the loot then start over again, lie in front of congressional committees, pay bribes to the same guys, establish and endless stream of daisy chained convulted sham/scam off shore "corporations" so they can buy,sell and lease their own stuff back and forth to each other to avoid any taxes and any personal named human responsibility, and to use lawyerese foreign language fine print on any "contracts" with end users that is so small that you need two magnifying glasses to read it.

Besides that sure, if this is true and reasonable, bring me dsl (19.2 dsl? huh?) (sdsl preferrably so I can host) out in this rural area I live in that has some sort of reasonable up stream and downstream, I'll pay double that 10$, even triple, as long as my bandwith is my bandwith,you don't block my ports, and I don't have to pay for "content" that I don't want, that is, don't force me into a "bundling" arrangement for pay per view nonsense. Don't make me pay for a phoneline I never use. Don't tell me that you only "support" one OS when I call to get a connection. Something like that, more power to ya,hope to see it. If there's a lot of "gotchas" in the fine print, ain't interested, will hold out for guerrilla/independent/home made wireless access somehow. If you have a cool breakthrough-great! Even if it starts at 19.2 but can advance within a year, swell, I'll buy it. Not that much slower than I get now on staticy rural phone lines (phone line+inet connect running over 50 clams a month now), and I'd much rather have wireless, that means my projected move to even a "more" rural area won't necessarily jeopardise my inet connection..

We've nearly achieved the socialist paradise!

[Thud457]

1. One corp owns everything
2. Workers buy shares in said corp
3. Workers collect divedends on shares

4. 
   
   and to head off any smart alecs at the pass:
   

5. ????
6. Profit!

How do we do it? We're INSANE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

For $10/month all you can do is watch ads.

This is really bad news

[cdn-programmer]

Prior to the DCMA, the owner of copyrighted materials had the right to duplication and distribution of his/her creations. These rights were subject to the abuse of organisations like the RIAA for instance, but at least the artistic community held the rights until they (often naively) negotiated them away.

With the DMCA, safe harbour provisions were created that transfered the right of distribution away from the creator into the hands of the distributor the moment the creator posted his/her material on the net. In effect the creator of a work lost the right to distribute and duplicate their work - without any negotiation or need for the creator to be compensated.

Thus, a company that owns content (which is presently not made available on the net) would be at a disadvantage because the moment they post it - they would effectivly lose control over distrribution. This ruling by the FCC will fix that. By merging media interests with distribution interests the combined mega corporation controls both the distribution as well as retaining control of their copyrighted materials - IE the problem is fixed.

Collateral damage includes anyone who is not powerful enuf to be a major carrier and/or who does not have a significant amount of internet content - enough to make them attractive enough for a large telecomunications interest to want to climb into bed with them.

Slashdot falls into this category. With no means of negotiating a sweetheart "convergance" contract with a telecommunications carrier, slashdot will get hosed on bandwidth charges. Meanwhile, having lost the "right to copy" their presumably copyrighted materials (DMCA transfers these rights to the carriers) Slashdot is unable to participate in the HUGE revenues that stem from the delivery of same to the consumming public.

What a sad commentary on manipulation of the unfolding cyber world.

This development is NOT in our interest! It certainly should be considered rather draconian by anyone aspiring to make a living utilizing the technologys presently being developed for cyberspace.

This group will include most webmasters, many systems admins, most HTML and CGI programmers and probably most of the flash programmers. The group includes a lot of wanna-be-professional web developers and artists - many of whom are doing brilliant work and may never know why the job offers they were hoping for didn't develop.

If anyone things this is an overestimate of the damages - then consider the number of layoffs in the dot.bomb sector. A good place to read on this is at fucked company

Over at FC, Pud declares that these were just shitty business plans and that any company that does not make a profit will simply go out of business. Ya, Pud is pretty ruthless - might not have a heart.

The point IMHO that Pud is overlooking is that some outfits like Slashdot.org do a RATHER GOOD JOB and they also are feeling a cash squeeze. Perhaps its a bad business plan... but I rather think the issue is having your work taken without compensation and being given no access to a rather HUGE revenue stream that this work helps to create.

Let me ask - if it were not for great websites like Slashdot, why would people like us bother to subscribe to an ISP? We pay our ISP's for access to this material and our ISP's pay their upstreams. Somewhere along the way over to the slashdot servers the money flow stops.

Slashdot is a very popular website - even so they have little market clout in the eyes of upsteams. So little slashdot with little bargaining power is placed in the situtation that they can either pack up their bags and go home - or try to find some way to fund the operation.

Meanwhile, if there are say 100,000 slashdot readers then "we" pay at least $25x100,000 = $2,500,000 per month for our interent access. In my case with the dropping content, I find that the docs over at gnu and a few other open source projects makes it worthwhile for me to have a dedicated connection. In total - slashdot probably represents over 10% of the total internet content I look at. I would be very happy if a percentage of the money I pay each month found itself flowing into the pockets of SlashDot.

But without any distribution clout - that isn't likely to happen.

Meanwhile we should expect that organizations like CNN, TSN, and so forth will find they can make good money distrubuting THEIR content - because THEY will have enough clout to bargan for an inside seat in the distribtution game.

In effect, the rest of us subsidize them because the content they have could NEVER create the net.

Re:This is really bad news

[TheSync]

Nothing is stopping Slashdot from moving from a unicast medium (The Internet) to a broadcast medium (like cable television). But the economics of broadcast mean you need a certain level of audience to support it.

My theory is that there aren't really enough hardcore geeks to support a standard broadcast operation (see TechTV, which many people argue is pretty dumbed down already).

Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a Slashdot TV show, and have even looked into doing it...but it doesn't look like it will happen soon.

As for ISP subsidization, on a bit basis, Slashdot represents a really small amount of my Internet use, as a single streaming video would have many more bits than a year's worth of Slashdot.

Slashdot COULD go on a paid subscription basis only, but that would be (probably?) be against the philosophy of the site. Besides, do you really want your ISP asking the Slashdotters to start posting "Backstreet Boys use Linux" just to raise viewership & revenue? AOL probably does that already.

I admire the Slashdotters for holding together a content site this long. I know it has been tough, but that is the media business. They've done a great job!

Sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day it just gets worse. What made the US a great country were freedom, liberty, etc. Profitability was not the primary consideration ( although it was an outcome ). It seems the US has confused the the cause with the outcome and is perfectly willing to sacrifice the premises which led to its greatness. WTF?

I think one of the problems is that the US extends the freedoms of man to corporations. Treating a company like an individual is convenient until you realise that companies don't die - they have no natural limitations.

What can be done?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's people like you...

[Anonymous Coward]

that screw things up for us real 100 year old women from Colorado!

How on Earth is TIA going to work if you keep supplying erroneous, nay, fraudulent, information?!!!

Re:Chomsky's unveiling of US Media Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't shoot the messenger. How can you disagree with "huge chunks of what he says in this pamphlet and subsequent pronouncements"? He is trying to save your ass...

LOL

[Tranvisor]

"The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place."

Last time I checked, to actually blame a political party for something, they actually had to have somebody, anybody, in congress. Can you name any?

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he was referring to those who are philsophically sympathetic to libertarianism as it pertains to economics and the regulation of the marketplace, and NOT to members of the Libertarian Party. Free Market fundamentalists are very thick on the ground in Washington DC think tanks, and in BOTH political parties. Few if any of them have ever had any connection to the LP.

Re:LOL

[TheSync]

The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place."

I don't see the problem.

I can purchase 100 channels of digital cable television if I wish. I could get another hundred from satellite. I receive about 20 broadcast TV stations, several of which are in high-definition DTV. I can get hundreds of channels of digital satellite radio. I have $40/month DSL with over 600 kbps downlink. I could get 1Mbps cable modem connectivity if I wanted. Some nights, I play first-person-shooters with people all over the country.

I have Internet and a webcam on my cellphone. I canceled my slow CDPD service for 1xRTT. I chose from five different cell carriers. I can ever power up my shortwave and listen to hundreds of stations on there.

I can order all kind of DVDs through Netflix, and never have to go down the street to Blockbuster. There are three new movie theaters in town that specialize in independent and foreing films, all with stadium seating!

Should I get sick of television, I can always make my own and broadcast it on the Net.

Yes, I'm sick of Clear Channel as well, but evidently the majority of listeners like hearing pop...so I'm thinking about going XM. Sorry about change, that's life, but it wasn't like there was a Hindi or techno radio station on FM here anyway! I listen to Shoutcast at home as it is...and did I mention that FM stations will soon have digital sound using iBOC?

I am inundated by far more media than I could ever use. Never in my life have I felt more capable of getting the information I need or want, or being entertained should I need to.

20 years ago I had no cable, DSL, cellphone, digital TV, or Internet access! My media life revolved around a handful of TV networks, a few radio stations, and a few movie studios.

Why all the whining?

Re:LOL

[ONU CS Geek]

Yes, I'm sick of Clear Channel as well, but evidently the majority of listeners like hearing pop...so I'm thinking about going XM. Sorry about change, that's life, but it wasn't like there was a Hindi or techno radio station on FM here anyway! I listen to Shoutcast at home as it is...and did I mention that FM stations will soon have digital sound using iBOC?

Considering that XM's Corporate partner is Clear Channel, do you really think you're going to run too far away? The Talk channle Buzz XM, for example, is nothing more than Clear-Channle Re-Broadcasting. Mike Trevisano from WTAM 1100 (formerly WWWE) in Cleveland, Willie and the Truckin' Bozo from 700 WLW...LA Kiss FM...the whole XM Radio just leaks of Clear Channle repeat content. Don't believe me? Go to to this XM Radio Page and see for yourself.

Re:LOL

[DunbarTheInept]

I didn't say the Libertarians were responsible. I said a particular belief they hold was responsible. This belief also happens to be held by a lot of other people, people who are not Libertarians, and that's how it came to be implemented. But only the Libertarians make this particular belief the primary cornerstone of their platform.

The Libertarians (note the capital L) have about as much to do with liberty as the Democrats have to do with Democracy and the Republicans have to do with keeping the nation a republic.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Big media - the big tobacco of tomorrow

[jessedl]

A lot has been written about the potential for a technological riff between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. I believe instead this riff will divide the media-addicts and those strong enough to overcome or avoid media-addiction.

The interesting thing about those who read and write to slashdot regarding this story is their tension between media-craving and media-disgust. The majority of respondents, by virtue of reading the site itself, are in some way addicted to news and information. Notably they are loathe to hear of corporate conglomerates taking control, despite the fact that they likely pay $50+ monthly cable bills to these very corporations.

Media companies have exclusively the interest of their consumers in mind whenever they do anything. This is economic law. They give the masses - and we're all part of the masses despite whatever intellectual tricks we use to convince ourselves otherwise - what the masses demand. Substitution of one sub-media for another ("underground" music instead of "popular" music) does not free yourself, ultimately the happy-go-lucky Media Inc. will figure out your shifting preferences and deliver it to you in any form you're willing to pay for. And you WILL be willing to pay for it.

Re:Big media - the big tobacco of tomorrow

[TheSync]

A lot has been written about the potential for a technological riff between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.

Yes, a lot has been written, but even some of the poorest people I know still have a pretty good television, VHS or DVD, and AOL/Internet. The latter might be on a 386 (the going price of which is often "just get it out of my basement").

What is expensive is food & rent! Those are more like $10-$20 per day (unlike $10-$20 per month for Internet).

Re:Example of a media company controlling a countr

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to describe the power of such corporations although the US is beginning to have a glimpse of what happens when media becomes a tycoon controlled business.

They US media has been a tycoon controlled business since Hearst and Pulitzer strung newspapers throughout metropolitan areas across the country, then started news services to feed stories from the big cities to small town papers.

Later, wealthy electronics magnate David Sarnoff started NBC, then wealthy cigar magnate William Paley bought the ailing CBS; between the two you couldn't go up and down the radio dial without finding 50 stations in 30 cities all playing the same thing at the same time.

Information in the USA has been under the influence of money since before any of us were born.

Okay, we know this is bad but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... so what can we DO about it?

As for what I've done personally (not that this helps as much):

1) Stopped watching TV (just rent Anime flicks)
2) Do *NOT* listen to radio stations owned by Clear Channel.
3) Do not purchase and/or run software by Microsoft.
4) Do not vote for Republicrats.

What I'm debating on doing:

1) Joining the ACME Coalition (http://www.acmecoalition.org)
2) Moving to Canada

you've got something wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Both houses of Congress were in Republican hands when that abortion was signed by Clinton.

The two parties cut a deal with the Washington Post and New York Times. If they didn't report on NAFTA and GATT, the Slimes and comPost would be allowed to buy up monopoly shares of media in the best markets.

And so it worked. We're just seeing the final shake out here.

Who Rules America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who Rules America?
The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken

By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro West Virginia 24946 USA

There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the
manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering
general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that
of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in
America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power
that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or
poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think
about that image. Essentially everything we know -- or think we know -- about
events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via
our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our
newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas"
that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters.
They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and
the entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized
and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and
facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations -- all
of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we
interpret what we see or hear.

On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt
from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully
developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that
we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart
money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various
types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the
context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters
react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially
sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or
businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and
hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist -- that
is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at
the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a
despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a
dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all
law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar
stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy
portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with
difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and
attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all
too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the
TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform
responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and
actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of
others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity
with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether
televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is
that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media
masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only
slant what they present, but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules
for the permissible spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or
commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others
seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is
backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish
interests rather than American interests to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq,
Israel's principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible
opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States.
Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife,
while others are emotionally partisan -- with the partisanship always on the
non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the
position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that
they are good things.

Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize
that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed
news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an
apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers' influence by
believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails
you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion
is acceptable to the media masters -- and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is
allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the
controlled media -- television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion
pictures -- speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the
appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts
or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form
opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a
single view of the world -- a world in which every voice proclaims the equality
of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness
of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders,
the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence
of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic,"
cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world
designed by the media masters to suit their own ends -- and the pressure to
conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in
accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very
large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the media being
controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that
were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least
approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. The preponderance of
Jews in the media is so overwhelming, however, that we are obliged to assume
that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News & Entertainment Media

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has
resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating
wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of
multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are
rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in
size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local
broadcasting station or via a cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a
feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to
recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine -- it is very
likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or
distributed by one of these megamedia companies.

The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when AOL bought
Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a
Gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin, a Jew, as
the CEO. Although AOL-TW isn't (yet) run entirely by Jews, the effect of this
blend of leadership between a White capitalist whose biggest concern is money
and a racially conscious Jew will be gradually to increase the Jewish influence
within AOL. Steve Case won't complain when Gerald Levin begins hiring mostly
Jews to fill key positions beneath him because Case's own profits won't be
affected. After Case dies or retires, the Jews will have complete control at
AOL.

Before the merger, AOL was the largest Internet service provider in America, and
it will now be used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time
Warner.

Time Warner, Inc., with 1997 revenues of more than $13 billion, was the second
largest of the international media leviathans when it was bought by AOL. Levin,
chairman and CEO of Time Warner, had bought Turner Broadcasting Systems in 1996
from Ted Turner, who had been one of the few Gentile entrepreneurs in the media
business. Ted Turner, as the company president, became the number three man at
AOL-TW, after Case and Levin.

When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985,
there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner had made a fortune
in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with
over 70 million subscribers. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key
executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to
Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was
regarded by Chairman William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable:
a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them.
Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly
charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel,
insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover
of the company, and from 1986 until 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS,
removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner
to acquire a major network were obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns
nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. When his
fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin
had no objection.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded
the "connections" necessary for being a true media master. He finally decided if
you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to Levin. Ted Turner is in one
respect a reflection of Steve Case. Both of these White men are capitalists with
no discernible degree of racial consciousness or responsibility. In July 2001,
AOL Time Warner announced that yet another Jew, Walter Isaacson, formerly the
editorial director of Time, Inc., will become the new chairman and CEO of CNN
News Group, which oversees the news empire that Ted Turner built.

Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network.
Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music
was America's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is
Warner Brothers Records. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap."
Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's
acquisition by MCA), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics
explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.

In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the
production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment,
and New Line Cinema) and in publishing. Time Warner's publishing division
(editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in
the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).

The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion,
is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The
Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as "a control
freak," includes several television production companies (Walt Disney
Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks
with more than 100 million subscribers altogether.

As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, under Walt Disney
Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures,
Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded
Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger
Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and
Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest,
and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family, prior to its
takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While
it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded
into the production of a great deal of so-called "adult" material.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC
Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big
markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is
part owner of several European TV companies.

ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein,
who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime
Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million
subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major
cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400
affiliates.

Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over
$1 billion in publishing in 1997. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild
Publications (Women's Wear Daily), Chilton Publications (automotive manuals),
and the Diversified Publishing Group.

Number three on the list, with 1997 revenues of just over $13 billion, is
Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Viacom, which
produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 13
television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through
Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Redstone acquired CBS
following the December 1999 stockholders' votes at CBS and Viacom.

Working for Redstone as CBS's chief executive is a Jew named Melvin A. Karmazin.
He is the boss and biggest individual shareholder of the company that owns the
CBS Television Network, 14 major-market TV stations, 160 radio stations, the
Country Music Television and the Nashville Network cable channels, and a large
number of outdoor advertising assets.

Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free
Press, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster
stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video
games.

Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of
cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks.
Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the
juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive
quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the
ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of
Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the
largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and
sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks plans to acquire The Music
Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener. TMF distributes
music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its
presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV
Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV
pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71
countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the
world.

Nickelodeon, with about 65 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of
the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly
into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is
MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his
kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. As of early 2001,
Nickelodeon was continuing a nine-year streak as the top cable network for
children and younger teenagers.

Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company,
Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar
Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned
Universal Studios and Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta
rap." These companies now belong to Vivendi Universal.

Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also
acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion
to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips. With the revenue from PolyGram
added to that from MCA and Universal, Bronfman became master of the fourth
largest media empire, with annual revenues around $12 billion. One especially
unfortunate aspect of the PolyGram acquisition was that it gave Bronfman control
of the world's largest producer of classical music CDs: PolyGram owns the
Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family sold Seagram to Vivendi, a French utilities
company led by gentile Jean-Marie Messier. The combined company, Vivendi
Universal, will retain Edgar Bronfman, Jr., as the vice chairman of the new
company, and he will continue to be in charge of its entertainment division. The
strategy for this merger seems to mirror that of AOL-Time Warner: infect and
wait. Vivendi Universal will pay off the debts it assumed in the merger by
selling Seagram's alcohol business, retaining its media empire.

With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, and with Jews
in executive charge of the remaining two, it is difficult to believe that such
an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted
effort on their part.

What about the other big media companies?

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th
Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in
the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media
company that comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is a Gentile Australian,
but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of
News Corporation's film, television, and publishing operations in the United
States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura
Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under
Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New
York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin's supervision.
Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate
Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into
the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late
twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a
Gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part,
Chernin was quite candid: "I get to control movies seen all over the world. . .
. What could be more fun?"

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the
largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World
Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premier independent TV
program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who
also owns Revlon cosmetics and who offered a job to Monica Lewinsky when Bill
Clinton was trying to keep her quiet.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly
kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording
industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg,
and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company
produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music.
Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg
have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and
distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in
the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last
barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able
to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had
everything their way in the movie industry.

Films produced by just the four largest motion picture companies mentioned above
-- Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) --
accounted for two-thirds of the total box-office receipts for the year 1997.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC.
With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer
independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled
by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David
Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by
Laurence Tisch. Over periods of several decades these networks were staffed from
top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did
not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish
presence in television news remains particularly strong.

NBC provides a good example of this. The executives at NBC recently were
shuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the
network's news division, ascended to become its president and chief operations
officer. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack's
old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC
entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and
Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker's old spot after shoving aside Michael Bass, who
had been filling in for Zucker with Today. Some time ago, Wald became the
producer of the NBC Nightly News, taking the position from Jeff Gralnick. When
Wald moved to Today, Steve Capus took over as Tom Brokaw's producer. It is not
known at this time whether Capus is a Jew or not, but everyone else is.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other
networks. For example, in February 2000, Al Ortiz moved to head the "Special
Events" coverage at CBS, making gentile Jim Murphy the executive producer of The
CBS Evening News with Dan Rather -- and the only exception that we know of to an
otherwise solidly Jewish cadre of television news producers. The new CBS Early
Show, which replaced CBS This Morning, had an internal shakeup in which three
producers were fired, ostensibly for not being "aggressive" enough. One wonders
whether they were also not Jewish enough. The shakeup did not, however, affect
the outgoing executive producer Al Berman, who transferred to a new job as a
program developer, and Steve Friedman has become the executive producer of the
Early Show.

Paul Friedman is still the executive producer of ABC World News Tonight with
Peter Jennings. Rick Kaplan, once an executive at ABC, moved to CNN in 1997,
where he became the president of CNN/USA.

The Print Media

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information
medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each
day. These millions are divided among some 1483 different publications (this
figure is for February 2000). One might conclude that the sheer number of
different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against minority
control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is less independence,
less competition, and much less representation of majority interests than a
casual observer would think.

In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned and
published by local people with close ties to their communities. Those days,
however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or driven
out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most "local" newspapers are owned by a
rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and
work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the
country's 1483 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to
multi-newspaper chains. Only 104 of the total number have circulations of more
than 100,000. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting
staffs outside their own communities; the rest must depend on these few for all
of their national and international news.

The Associated Press, which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the
control of its Jewish managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the
day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman
had directed the AP's national news as assistant managing editor since 1992. He
was promoted to his current job in 2000. Silverman reports to Jonathan Wolman,
also a Jew, who is executive editor for the AP.

In only 47 cities in America are there more than one daily newspaper, and
competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and
afternoon editions under the same ownership. Examples of this are the Mobile,
Alabama, morning Register and afternoon Press-Register; and the Syracuse, New
York, morning Post-Standard and afternoon Herald-Journal -- all owned by the
Jewish Newhouse brothers through their holding company, Advance Publications.

The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of real
competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable
appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they
could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 30 daily newspapers, including
several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark
Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting,
consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems,
including some of the country's largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement
Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two
dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour,
Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the
other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.

This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant
from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings
worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. With a
number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown
to more than $8 billion today.

The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree
made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their
subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue -- not the
small change collected from a newspaper's readers -- that largely pays the
editor's salary and yields the owner's profit.

Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over
another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its
competitor dies. Since the beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile
power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise
in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady
decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers -- primarily as a result
of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management
are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial
and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and
dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays
the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the
dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control
over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as
an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than
by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential
newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are
the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others.
They are the ones that decide what is news and what isn't, at the national and
international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it. And
all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.

The New York Times, with a September 1999 circulation of 1,086,000, is the
unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of the
nation. It tells America's "smart set" which books to buy and which films to
see; which opinions are in style at the moment; which politicians, educators,
spiritual leaders, artists, and businessmen are the real comers. And for a few
decades in the 19th century it was a genuinely American newspaper.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and
George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate
by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-great-grandson, Arthur
Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and the chairman of the New
York Times Co. The executive editor is Joseph Lelyveld, also a Jew (he is a
rabbi's son).

The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other
newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion;
twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more
than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV
system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service
transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by
wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.

Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing
its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on
news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was
established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R.
McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the
height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was
purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former
partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, industry czar in America during the
First World War.

The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's
daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the
Washington Post Co. In 1979 she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper.
He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The
newspaper has a daily circulation of 763,000, and its Sunday edition sells 1.1
million copies.

The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the
Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in
Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio,
WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation's number-two
weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Washington Post Company's various television
ventures reach a total of about 7 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable
One, has 635,000 subscribers.

In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International
Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world.

The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the
nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones &
Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other daily
newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. The
chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds
the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News
was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born
Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village
Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of
the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm. And, as mentioned above, the New York Post
is owned by News Corporation under the Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television,
radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There
are only three of any importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek,
and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of
Time Warner Communications, the new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger
of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner
Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under
the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.1 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.2 million, is owned and
published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken the
position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the
Atlantic Monthly and New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the
sixth-largest paper in the country.

Our Responsibility

Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few
hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio
and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into
registers of corporations and their officers, such as those published by
Standard and Poors and by Dun and Bradstreet; and into standard biographical
reference works can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable, and when
confronted with them Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the
issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of "anti-Semitism" for
even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that keeps many persons
who know the facts silent.

But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues! The Jewish
control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life,
not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing -- plague,
famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war -- more dangerous to the future of
our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and
permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of
war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian
Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians.
There would be no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing
more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and
virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds
and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish
television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole
generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there
is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with
White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability
and character -- except that the character of the White race is suspect because
of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial
self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we
must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for
such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests
different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of
nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is
tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today
are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively
seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media
control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our
inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We
must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its
deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds
and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary
end.

Owners, managers, and corporate relationships change from time to time, of
course. All of the names and other data in this report have been checked
carefully and are accurate as of July 2001.

Re:The joke is on them...

[symbolic]

I RARELY listen to the radio any more, and when I do, it's more often than not a donation-supported station. Of course, there are hordes of unenlightened 'revnodes' out there, able, willing, and ready to lap up whatever major interests like Clear Channel throw their way - kind of like dogs that have been trained to wait for table scraps while their human owners feast on an expensive dinner.

I love this quote

[kindbud]

"The most important thing the Powell commission will do is eliminate all the rules that proactively prevent telecommunications and media companies from entering new lines of business," said Blair Levin, an FCC official in the Clinton administration who now analyzes regulatory policy for the investment firm Legg Mason Wood Johnny Walker Red Label Solomon Smith Barney Dreyfuss Merrill Lynch Wal-Mart Inc.

"We are clearly going to have a lot of consolidation. The question is, is the nature of technology such that we can still get the vibrant competition that you would want?"

Ok, so I exaggerated the name of the guy's paycheck-writer a little bit. But I thought it was funny that this guy was talking about massive consolidation with a business card that reads like his does. :)

Heloise's helpful hints for hoboes:

[Thud457]

In these modern times, most shoes are made entirely or in part of plastics. These are not safe to eat.

If you find yourself looking for a good zapata dinner, be sure to only select a shoe made entirely of natural materials. The traditional leather shoe is the preferred choice. The animal-based glues create a tasty sauce.

Other natural materials such as cotton canvas or, if your are really lucky, hemp are also edible. Be sure to allow plenty of time to boil the shoe. The longer it is boiled, the more tender it will be.

Thunderbird should be served with leather shoes, ripple with cloth shoes.

$40 for cable and internet??

[SparkyMartin]

I think you drank too much beer when you were up here. Please tell me where in Canada you can get cable TV AND Internet for $40 Canadian! I live in Ontario and I pay $40 for broadband cable, $40 for cable TV, and another $20 for digital cable. That's $100 not $40. The cheapest internet/digital package I can get is $80. I looked at the prices in Calgary and the prices are similar. (and yes I know that's still cheap compared to most parts of the world-i'm not complaining, I'm commenting)

You are correct about the investment in infrasturcture. Places out west offered adsl in the early 90's when most ppl had slip accounts, and most ppl didn't even hear about the internet. Saskatchewan upgraded a huge chunk of its' copper wire to fiberoptics in the 80's in order to bring data communications to rural communities! How's that for foresight? One thing I notice is that there is a big difference between western canada and eastern canada. Western Canada is quick to adopt new technologies and innovations, while Eastern Canada has old school thinking-if it aint't broke don't fix it. For example, in Quebec many pay phones are still rotary.

In case you want to keep up with the mergers

[FlyingElvi]

A good little place to keep up with the mergers and conglomerations in the media world is at Who Owns What.

The Columbia Journalism Review keeps good tabs on such things.

Insightful? Give me a break...

[ratamacue]

Please don't spread FUD. Of course the Libertarians believe that a corporation "can do wrong", and this happens precisely when that corporation breaks the rules of voluntary association by initiating force. Please refer to the intro below if you don't understand this concept (which I'm assuming you don't).

Intro to Libertarian philosophy

Re:Insightful? Give me a break...

[DunbarTheInept]

I've read it. It doesn't change the fact that in *practice* the Libertarians (notice the capital L. I'm talking about the party here) favor corporations in legal battles regardless of the facts. Take Microsoft for example. The party's stance is that MS never did anything wrong.

Impassioned histrionics

[haapi]

"No industry is so fraught with impassioned histrionics as this one," Powell said on Channel 1,
Channel 2, Channel 3, ...

I did like the line, though, where he said that the
anti-trust department would have to "take a pill and go to sleep" for big consolidations to happen.

A Perhaps Relevant Quote

[ewhac]

The following is from the 1976 movie Network, a great film that stills bears watching to this day. Mr. Jensen, chairman of the network, is angrily lecturing Howard Beale, an insane news anchorman whose exhortation to viewers blocked an important business deal (quotes taken from IMDB):

"YOU HAVE MEDDLED WITH THE PRIMAL FORCES OF NATURE, MR. BEALE, AND I... WON'T... HAVE IT! IS THAT CLEAR?

"You think you've merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians! There are no Arabs! There are no third worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars! It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature! AND YOU! WILL! ATONE!! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21 inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

"The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. Our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock -- all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel."

"Why me?"

"Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday."

"I have seen the face of God."

"You just might be right, Mr. Beale."

The film is packed full of other great scenes and quotes. (Check out the scene where the network is negotiating next year's distribution deal for footage shot by a domestic terrorist group.) It's an excellent, prescient, and somewhat bleak film. Go hunt it down and rent it. You shan't be disappointed.

Schwab

Unfounded Hate and Fear isn't so bad...

[JohnDenver]

It's the propigation of unchecked stupidity, non-scientific speculation, and mis-information that really gets me.

In situations like this, you don't need to make your opponent look like an idiot, and yell in ALL CAPS WITH A GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY for people to get the point.

Instead, constrast HIS GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY, with logic. Your goal is to vindicate the reader's suspicians that your foe is stupid. ...but don't stop there. Follow it up with a very brief, poignantly resonate explaination of your foe's delusions.

The goal is to turn your foes opinion into an example of what NOT to do, while subtiley pushing logic and reason.

Re:Example of a media company controlling a countr

[Anonymous Coward]

One interesting example is what happened to "Fernando Collor", a whacko that eventually got elected as the Brazilian President some years ago. Globo supported Collor fiercely, as the other candidate was Lula (the current Brazilian president). Corporations were very afraid that a left wing candidate would win and Globo used all their power in favor of Collor. Later, winds changed and Collor started to go really nuts. Result: Globo gave all attention (nationwide!) to anti-Collor movements across the country. Lots of dust under the rug came to light and he was eventually impeached.

For that, Rede Globo was criticized during the entire last decade. Laws were passed then to avoid it from happening again, so now coverage on all candidates must be fair.

And if this was not enough, consider this: In the US, when Britney Spears starts singing on the radio you just say a few bad words and change the station (OK, OK, it's going to be hard to find a good one). In Brazil, when Globo wants to impose a new fad, you'll see that on TV most of the time, you'll listen on a few radio stations and on the highest circulation newspapers. You cannot escape the annoyance. You just cannot.

Yes, you can.

Brazil is a media-rich country, and you have alternatives if you minimally look for them.

We have TV Cultura, for example, which has the excelent "Roda Viva"[Living Ring] show, with a board of journalist/experts interviewing, live on TV, cientists, philosophers, educators, politicians, artists, business people from all over the world (Steve Ballmer and Michael Bloomberg are a few already interviewed when they visited Brazil respectively in 2002 and 2001), and "Observatório da Imprensa" (Press Watchers) with a group of pannelists who discuss, live, the media itself (one of these days they discussed media conglomerate consolidation and how that could possibly cripple freedom of speech and press).

Along with that, we have alternative newspapers, magazines, radios, sites, etc.

And, thank goodness, we can avoid Britney Spears, too!

Re:The joke is on them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there are hordes of unenlightened 'revnodes' out there, able, willing, and ready to lap up whatever major interests like Clear Channel throw their way - kind of like dogs that have been trained to wait for table scraps while their human owners feast on an expensive dinner.

Must make you feel very important and smart, hmm?

Re:The joke is on them...

[symbolic]

Without a doubt.

I love the fox/henhouse metaphor.

[Hentai]

The situation with deregulation in this country has put the foxes in charge of hen house.

So, you're suggesting that being slaughtered for food (snap metaphor: exploited without your consent) by the farmer (snap metaphor: government) is better than being slaughtered for food (snap metaphor: exploited without your consent) by the fox?

Think about this metaphor, especially whenever it gets used to describe the government, corporations, and the public: You aren't the farmer; you're the hen. YOU'RE SCREWED EITHER WAY. Either the government cooks you over a slow-roast fire, or the corporations rend you limb from limb. You have no power to protect yourself; once, a long time ago, you might have had the opportunity to choose to leave the henhouse and risk death at the hands of the foxes in exchange for freedom from the farmer's axe. But now, even that decision is taken from you - you will be a slave to whoever they tell you to be a slave to, and you will learn to like it. Your only choice is to decide which of our 250 all-digital channels will teach you how to like it, and how to properly show your appreciation.

A boot stepping on a human face forever, indeed.

Re:I love the fox/henhouse metaphor.

[Qrlx]

Hentai, you have a point but I don't agree with it completely. There is a vast difference between getting screwed by Big Government and getting screwed by Big Business.

Some utilities, like the phone company, deal in sick amounts of money. On the order of a billion dollars a week in revenues. (Not sure of the exact number)

Put that much money in the hands of a government office, and they will bloat out and become horribly inefficient. You'll pay too much for your services, and libertarians will whine that the private sector would be sooo much more efficient.

What the libertarians overlook is the incredible temptation of huge, huge sums of money. I cannot say that I wouldn't do the same things as those Enron scumbags were I in their place, and had the chance to get away with it (as they pretty much have done so far.)

So while you're "screwed either way" there is definitely a great difference in the severity with which you will be screwed. As everybody on the West Coast found out.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather have the Farmer in charge of the hen house rather than the Fox -- The Farmer, if he has a brain, won't kill all the hens at once because he needs them to make more hens. The Fox will go nuts, taking whatever he wants without any sort of a long-term vision thing guiding his efforts. The fox will rape and pillage with reckless abandon, since he knows The Farmer will tax the hens to pay for rebuilding the henhouse after it's turned in into a meth lab. The Farmer's vision might be misguided at times, but at least he sees us chickens as a tiny bit more than raw materials for his profit-making pleasure-taking machine.

Don't get me wrong, I recognize that the role of government is to provide a stable and functional enough societal framework to let the entrepreneurs play. In that sense the government's business is pimping its own people out to the capitalists. But there's a huge difference between the mission statement and the mindset of your public utility that provides your drinking water (a basic service that should be available to all) and a private coporation that provides your drinking water (a valuable product and if you can't afford it too bad).

Here's a question:

[Chris Burke]

So assume that a grass-roots public internet arises based on wireless tech. Assume the Powers That Be don't like being circumvented, but they haven't managed to make this internet illegal. Okay, now for the question.

How do you design the protocols (routing, but possibly IP as well) to take into account not only unreliable nodes, but outright hostile ones? Nodes that would do all they could to look legitimate, but that would not actually forward any traffic (it might, for example, send responses that appear to be from the destination host, but contain garbage payloads).

It sounds like a tough problem to me, and one that such a network may have to face.

Re:Here's a question:

[kableh]

A system similar to Freenet perhaps? Full crypto between nodes, plausible deniability, stego-type routing schemes, ratings, the concept is there at least. Freenet is basically a net on top of the net, I don't see why it couldn't be applied to the wireless realm, but at a lower level, just for passing packets. It has been a while since I read the protocol spec though, and it was terribly confusing =).

Good question though, and probably inevitable.

I hate to be a doomsday prophet, but...

[McDoobie]

If things keep moving the way they are as far as information control, it might get to the point that we'll have to actively take up breaking the law in terms of hacking in order to maintain at least a few channels open for dissenting opinions.

I dont like that idea, but if things keep on track as far as Money=Legislation, then that might be the only recourse.
Sure, we could go the wireless route with all our networking, until the corporate owned FCC decides to regulate that also.

I write my congressman. I write my local legislators. Hell, I even write the local newspaper. It doesnt do any good. If you cant give the politician a kickback, they arent interested. What else is left?

I hope the non-Americans dont have it this screwy.

McDoobie

IN SOVIET RUSSIA we only have 2 ISP...

[MillionthMonkey]

ISP 1 is no good, places needlessly restrictive filters on all your traffic.
ISP 2 routes all your packets through ISP 1!

They tried this before,

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany. It got ugly..
Now the very same group is trying the very same thing all over again. It's gonna get ugly again.

That's odd...

[SuperKendall]

I wonder why my Monopoly-Perl Sensitive Sunglasses have suddenly gone dark? I can hardly read the screen to post!

Looking forward to that cheap DSL though!

This was predicted a year ago..

[Stuart Park]

An article from slashdot about a year ago predicted this very situation with the FCC.

(of course at the time no-one seemed interested in it, and the article was hidden in a sub-section off the main page)

Where do you sign up?

[alizard]

The nearest public mental health clinic. If you believe this, you probably need to be... separated from the rest of us for a while until you've gotten the professional help you need. Go now, while you've still got a choice in the matter.

you want to see who bought who?

[alizard]

Try OpenSecrets. Political donation - politician database, includes PACs and party committees.

If the geek community had something serious enough to be listed there, we could afford to be a lot calmer about this situation. The geeks never even made a serious attempt to buy Congress.

Re:Example of a media company controlling a countr

[Anonymous Coward]

Brazil is a good example of what happens when media corporations are allowed to do whatever they want.

When I read that first line, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about the country or the movie!

He may be trying to save my ass, but...

[Infonaut]

I'm not shooting the messenger at all. Just because he's "trying to save my ass" doesn't mean I should read his works uncritically, does it? Uncritical acceptance is the very thing he rails against.

Nation's academics need to get *relevant*

[Infonaut]

Much of the reason social science academics aren't taken more seriously is that an overwhelming number of them seem to be mired in the Marxist dogma that they were first exposed to in their undergraduate days.

Go to most universities across the United States, and you'll find a class of individuals who are very much outside the mainstream of American thought. This doesn't mean that their views are unimportant, but it does mean that in order for their views to be heard, they need to frame their arguments in a way that the average American will grok, rather than in post-modernist lingo or Marxist rhetoric.

I also take issue with the statement that academics have "little to no regard for anything outside the subject." That's pure bullshit. Anyone who has ever worked at a university will tell you that internal departmental politics plays a *huge* role in what gets published and who gets listened to in academia.

It's also important to note that academics are exceedingly good at analyzing and critiquing the actions of others, but do not have to make decisions of any consequence themselves. There's a huge difference between sharpshooting from the shadows, and taking responsbility for an actual *plan* to do something. The American public understands this. One of my issues with Chomsky is just that - it's easy for him to knock away at The System, but anyone can do that, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. When he starts offering truly considered and coherent plans to affect some real change, then his rants will morph into something of actual utility.

Academia has a lot to offer in the current American poltical and societal reality, but it has always been and may always be an elitist environment more interested in learning for the sake of learning and self-congratulation, rather than in the effective dissemination of ideas to the wider population. Until that changes, don't expect Joe Ford to start watching televised MIT debates on the TV every night.

What if all are owned by a small_number of co's?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they broadcast the same info on all media? This is aka "synergy".

So if The Man decides that a story has to be killed, it's much easier now because only a few people need to be convinced.

If there were lots of media owners, many more people would have to be "persuaded" to kill a story. Hence, the probability of somebody being unpersuaded is higher.

Why kill stories? To con the public into supporting policies (beneficial to The Man, of course) they wouldn't if they had all the facts.