And now you're quoting Glenn Beck?? Sorry, but your information is only as credible as your source. And in this case, there is none.

Why don't you get back to editing and stop watching so much crap on TV.

And now you're quoting Glenn Beck?? Sorry, but your information is only as credible as your
==========
That's all you noticed after all the "sources" and information I provided? Glenn Beck is only one person in the media distorting what Net Neutrality rules are supposed to be. I didn't actually watch it. I found it through a Nexis Database search. That's how I can gauge what the media covers, how they cover it, and to what extent.

For example, I read the MSNBC article Ed linked above. Here is how the author of the article (Wilson Rothman) describes the monopoly Verizon and Google are attempting to create:

The proposal — which is likely to carry weight as it comes from powerhouses of both content and broadband services — is an

An answer? He's selling the scam to his readers. This corporate nonsense will dominate the discussion if there is any at all throughout the networks.

I don't know what you watch, but how much discussion about this important subject have you seen, and what did they say about it? The media uses what I call "news filibusters" in their attempt to dumb down the public and get them to focus on things that DO NOT affect their lives, like Chelsea Clinton's wedding non-stop for two days without reporting any other "news" or the Death of Michael Jackson in June of 2009 non-stop for four straight days without even time to "mention" that the televised auctions of Iraq's oil fields had started that would have convinced people once and for all that the US went there for that reason. Most people in the US still don't know that.

John

I find it hard to believe that the media are deliberately filtering out critical news.

It seems more likely that they are focusing on "bubblegum news" to entertain rather than inform.

Even pastors are told by their congregations and church councils nowadays to provide entertainment and "cheering up" in their sermons rather than the pesky words of real wisdom found in the good book.

Occasionally there is master manipulation by a "news creator," for example Israel's recent decision to launch a big attack on the first Gaza flotilla. They knew this was going to cost them a lot in the press, but it was worth it even as it really blew up on them, because it hid the news published by the major news media in Europe that South Africa had just declassified a signed agreement between P.W. Botha's apartheid regime and Israel's Begin for delivery of advanced weapons to South Africa, including nuclear weapons.

If that piece of news had gotten more attention, it would have destroyed Israel's credibility as a non-proliferator (not that they had signed any agreements for their now estimated 100 war heads).

So create a diversion, no matter the cost.

Rove was a master at this also.

There's a very informative article in Wired about the Google-Verizon "Net Neutrality" deal:

Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

I was really disappointed when I read the announcement that google had given up on net neutrality for wireless internet. If any company had the clout and money to try to force NN it was them and they gave up. sigh

For those that believe the carriers should be able to do whatever they want I would like to remind them that these companies are using internet research and development done by DARPA which was funded by us through our tax dollars. They now use that intellectual property for free. I believe NN is the licensing fees they should be forced to pay to be able to offer internet service.

To use the parking lot analogy, why should we allow companies, like AT&T, to charge us extra for parking in a public lot based on what we check out or read or view at the public libraries?

To address the concerns about companies being allowed to control the internet as opposed to the government, I vote for gov't control. At least the gov't has a semblance of transparency. As we have seen with the throttling by Comcast, the companies are only out for their bottom line and will try to hide, cheat and steal to get more $$$. Why should we allow 'carriers' to control the internet? Instead of the china wall type internet we will have a bunch of AOL type providers that will limit what, when and how we receive public information. Here again, I want gov't control. We at least have a chance to change it whereas we have no chance of really twisting AT&T's or Comcast's arms to force change.

I haven't given up all hope yet though. I think the FCC will eventually get the reclassification for ISP's and carriers they are wanting. It may be a while before all the Bush cronies are out or change their mind but I think we will eventually have NN. Since the internet is quickly becoming a defacto standard for news (partly due to newspapers and magazines going out of business) I think that we, as citizens, will have a groundswell to put a halt to all the carrier price gouging and imposition of a private corporation moral standard on us all.