Roughly the TRUTH

Framing this issue as “more federal regulation” is a clever tactic…

This week, Senator-R Jim DeMint gave his take on Network Neutrality – I was especially amused at the assertion he has made below:

Perspective: Why Net neutrality means more federal regulation
By Jim DeMint
Published: June 27, 2006
“It would be commercial suicide for any network provider to limit the ability of their customers to access any site or receive any service: Their customers would simply go elsewhere! Consumers have a growing number of choices of networks, and this competition will force networks to continuously upgrade their services. Federal regulation, on the other hand, would only reduce the quality and access of Internet services for all Americans.”

Telco’s & industry advocates have poured hoards of money into lobbying this issue. Translation: many well compensated senators & consultants working overtime on their behalf. Information - necessary for efficient free markets – is fortunately still available on congressional members; although with such freedoms being handed over to profit driven companies, this may not long be the case.

What Motivates a Senator
Monetary incentives tend to influence many of the views which individuals hold (economics 101). Contributions by the telco’s & other various industry advocates to Senator DeMint have clearly taken their toll on his ability to be objective – this is a toll to the tune of $132,849!

Various contributors to DeMint’s coffer…you be the judge:

Exerpt from: Wyche Burgess Freeman & Parham, P.A. website - Political Contributor ($23,300)

“We have played an important role in the creation and expansion of a number of major corporations located in Greenville, among them are a large diversified media organization”

Excerpt from: Babcock & Brown offers $2.36 billion for Irish telco Eircom – Political Contributor ($28,125)

“The bid for Eircom has been made four months after a failed takeover attempt for it by Swisscom AG, Switzerland’s largest telco.”

Excerpt from: Nelson Mullins Cyberwatch Newsletter – Political Contributor ($41,424)

Internet Bandwidth Neutrality
“A growing concern among large Internet-based companies is the dilemma being faced with large bandwidth charges. Those companies that provide the wires and fiber optics that connect the Internet believe that large “bandwidth hogs” should pay additional amounts to guarantee fast and efficient connections. To prevent such a move, companies such as Google and eBay are lobbying Congress to pass a law that would maintain “Net-neutrality”. In general, they are seeking a law that would prohibit telecommunications and cable companies from blocking or slowing down access to Web sites or for charging big bandwidth users a fee for priority access. The House of Representatives recently passed telecommunications legislation that did not include such neutrality provisions. However, the law did empower the Federal Communications Commission to investigate discrimination in online bandwidth access. Opponents of the Net-neutrality law argue that somebody must pay for the huge amount of bandwidth consumed by some large Internet sites. They state that if Internet service providers are not allowed to charge for greater-than-average bandwidth use, then the cost will end up being borne by the average consumer.”

Not to mention, the all-too-obvious:
AT&T – Political Contributor ($19,000)

Verizon Communications – Political Contributor ($21,000)

Nota Bena:
You can learn more about the other side of Net Neutrality by reading the founder of the internet’s thoughts and if you choose to do so, you can help protect Network Neutrality by going here: It’s Our Net.

Freedom of Speech; still going strong…

Internet born cult hero, Harry Taylor, gives our president a piece of his mind:

[via: Christy - why are you reading this?]

The Whitehouse has recently posed the question of how “honest” the press’ coverage of the Iraq war is. I say ‘war is hell’ - deal with it.

With this reality of war (which most all accept) aside, a debate has begun that is taking a serious look at the issue. A number of theories have been put forth; the press is compensating for it’s lack of in-depth reporting by being overly negative ( a lesson learned in the lead up to the Iraq war), on the other side we hear, WSIWYG - we are getting the accurate picture; besides, what else do we have to rely on? But there’s another side to this argument…

Profits and journalistic integrity don’t mix. Ever since Ronald Reagan lifted the law forcing the press to provide equal coverage of the issues, we have seen the rise of sensationalistic & opinionated news reporting. These profit driven media companies quickly learned this lesson …

People want their news, they also want validation for their views - this is natural. The bottom-line driven media companies are here to deliver. Fortunately, we have an alternative: PBS and the BBC, run as non-profits, are not subject to the same pressures as these other media outlets. The result is more balanced news and a sustained commitment to journalistic integrity. Even here there’s a lesson though…

In this age of digital information, the responsibility for filtering out all of the bullhonky falls more squarely on our shoulders than ever before. Regardless of where you get your news from, there’s no such thing as a completely unbiased point of view; therefore it is imperative that we remain diligent and conscious of our perceptions, question everything and draw our own conclusions.