Sweet, more taxes...

[Boatwrench]

"When lacking facts and data to back up your position or opinion, incite a personal attack in attempt to discredit the individual or source." .

Where did you get this quote? Curious (and open) minds want to know.

 

[Darky]

Two of the FCC's long standing mandates has been to make communication available to everyone and to make the opportunity for both sides of a discussion to be heard equally and . No "Diversity Officer", no matter how left wing will be able to disrupt that historical mandate.

The problem with deregulation was that it took out of the hands of the FCC the power to enforce it's two principle mandates.

Ron

How does forcing a station show both sides of an issue make sense? That would mean that a Christian broadcast station would be required to air programming from/for Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, etc. Programming that most people tuning in have no interest in, or info that they are not tuning in to watch. Would Extreme 4x4 or Overhaulin then have to air programming from the Sierra Club?

 

[XJEEPER]

Originally Posted by XJEEPER
"When lacking facts and data to back up your position or opinion, incite a personal attack in attempt to discredit the individual or source."

Where did you get this quote? Curious (and open) minds want to know.

I'm quoting myself...... from my mental compilation of life's observations.

 

[WB9YZU]

"When lacking facts and data to back up your position or opinion, incite a personal attack in attempt to discredit the individual or source." Well done, Ron.

It's not personal. When you use somebody's work, you credit them. You do not post it as your own work. If you don't it's called plagiarism.

I knew where you got the quote from, because I goggled it after you posted it.

I did find the piece interesting, and I did cross reference it against other sources to see if it was "fact" or just "opinion".

The long standing mandate of the FCC was to do exactly what I said it was. I was unaware that in 1985 that the FCC Commissioner (not "Diversity Officer") abolished the rule.

The Congress has since then ( I have found ) tried a number of times to re-institute the rule.

Darky, I think you misunderstand the idea. Fishing shows didn't have a conservation message from the Sierra Club, and Church Broadcasts were not required to also air an alternative Religion's mass. No, the idea was that if you editorialized on the radio, you were required to offer the other side equal time on your station. This promoted good journalism and keep the hacks off the radio. Good Journalism always examines both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, there is so much poor journalism that is touted as "fact" that the Press has lost all their credibility as a News source.

Ron

 

[joe_peters]

When Hearst Artist Frederic Remington, cabled from Cuba in 1897 that "there will be no war," William Randolph Hearst cabled back: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,854840,00.html#ixzz0kxH7q5by

Fairness in reporting--another urban myth. Never was, never will be. Same crap in public schools--"Learn it our way Jimmy or you will FAIL."--and the same crap in the centers of free thought--universities. Unless you go to a private religious university--conservative bias--you will be indoctrinated in the progressive socialist attitudes of the other schools. Freedom of expression? Urban myth. Fair and balanced? Urban myth.

Break free and educate yourselves.
​

 

[Darky]

Right, but was this applied only to news or to all opinion based shows? It's one thing to expect a news editorial to offer the opposition a chance for rebuttal, but another thing entirely to apply that to all opinions expressed on air. I'm not sure I agree with either thought though.

 

[joe_peters]

Right, but was this applied only to news or to all opinion based shows? It's one thing to expect a news editorial to offer the opposition a chance for rebuttal, but another thing entirely to apply that to all opinions expressed on air. I'm not sure I agree with either thought though.

I believe the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast programming--public airways where you had to have a broadcast license--and I think it applied to news and editorials.

 

[XJEEPER]

It's not personal. When you use somebody's work, you credit them. You do not post it as your own work. If you don't it's called plagiarism.
Ron

You assume too much.......and your tactics are clear.

http://battalions2.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/good-old-liberal-debate-tactics/

 

[joe_peters]

You assume too much.......and your tactics are clear.

And what happens when we assume? Makes an A**-U-ME?

 

[Boatwrench]

Ron,
I believe plagiarism only applies to copyrighted material. How much of the internet is copyrighted?

Jeff,
I am going to plagiarize your quote.

Tom

 

[XJEEPER]

Ron,
I believe plagiarism only applies to copyrighted material. How much of the internet is copyrighted?

Jeff,
I am going to plagiarize your quote.

Tom

Rock on!

 

[WB9YZU]

Ron,
I believe plagiarism only applies to copyrighted material. How much of the internet is copyrighted?

Tom

Tom, the material that he copied off that site is copyrighted as it clearly indicates on the bottom of the page he copied.

Also, if one examines the Terms of Use agreement on that site, it clearly indicates that you may not replicate the material on that site in any fashion without obtaining permission from the Museum.

Posting your material on the web does not negate your copyright of your work. So, the answer to your question would be 'most of it'.

Ron

 

[XJEEPER]

Tom, the material that he copied off that site is copyrighted as it clearly indicates on the bottom of the page he copied.

Also, if one examines the Terms of Use agreement on that site, it clearly indicates that you may not replicate the material on that site in any fashion without obtaining permission from the Museum.

Posting your material on the web does not negate your copyright of your work. So, the answer to your question would be 'most of it'.

Ron

:banghead:

2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.

6. QUOTE AN UNSOURCED NEW ARTICLE. Always quote the article selectively, or describe it in a general manner.


9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.

13. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized.

15. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points

http://battalions2.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/good-old-liberal-debate-tactics/


Ron, derailing the thread doesn't change the facts that the FCC does not have the right to force a tax on businesses so the US Goverment can transfer the collected taxes in the form of grants to support the "opposing" or as they call it, Liberal view. (See NPR, PBS, etc.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122951230



If the American public was interested in buying their product, Air America would still be broadcasting.......yet, oddly enough.....shows like Rush, Hannity and Beck seem to flourish?

Using Glenn Beck as an example, he regularly has more viewers tune into his non-primetime show than all of the Prime Time network shows....COMBINED.

This is how capitalism works, provide a product that the public views as a valuable commodity and want to purchase and deliver it to them at a fair price and your business will flourish.

If a better product comes along, the business owner must either lower his price to attract new business or improve his product to increase its value and win the competetive business.

The Progressives in Washinton and their supporter don't grasp this concept, nor do they grasp the concept that life isn't fair and people shouldn't be forced to buy crap that they don't need or want.....nor should they be forced to pay for something that they don't need or want.

What Progressives view as "fair" is actually only "fair" to those who have failed to provide a product or service that Free People want, so the government steps in to help them out.....and in this case, by taxing their competition to the point that they are no longer profitable.

In spite of the efforts of Obama-appointed Green Czar Van Jones, http://colorofchange.org/beck/ to discredit Beck and call for boycotts of his show in the attempt to force him out of business, the American public continues to "buy his product".

Net Neutrality is a steeping stone to Governmental media control on the Web. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[WB9YZU]

I am laughing so hard right now, I had to pull the keyboard off the desk to type this!!!!!!!!!!

 

[XJEEPER]

:speepin:

 

[JNickel101]

....I don't get it.... :dunno:

 

[Darky]

I am laughing so hard right now, I had to pull the keyboard off the desk to type this!!!!!!!!!!

So...um...do you actually have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you just gonna continue your attempted flame war? I thought you old guys were smarter than that?

 

[WB9YZU]

So...um...do you actually have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you just gonna continue your attempted flame war? I thought you old guys were smarter than that?

LOL!

More like a mutual bic lighter skirmish :roflmao: Sorry about that

Age, does not equal wisdom. If age had anything to do with wisdom we would have both chuckled about it and moved on I'm sure he took it all in fun anyway, after all, it is just a silly little Forum

I have been thinking about the subject on and off as I got some serious windshield time the last couple of days on the job.

Taxes ebb and flow. There was a time when a CB license cost you something to have, now it's nothing. An Amateur Radio License test cost went from something, to nothing, to 'we don't want to bother administering them, why don't you guys police yourselves and send us the completed test forms'. However my GMRS license costs $70 to renew every few years.

Relating directly to land based telecom, I looked at my basic phone bill yesterday. The effective tax rate after you figure in all the 'user fees' and USF is a full 25%. The USF I looked up on-line ( I get billed a WI USF and a Federal USF fee ) The WI USF fee goes to better computer and video equipment and IT infrastructure for WI schools. The Federal USF fee goes toward making sure everyone gets telephone service, which if you look at is this way, also makes sure everyone at least gets dial up internet.

If the FCC gets involved in the internet, I see a few things happening:

* The Internet providers will have to be fair about their connections. No slowing one customer down for another.
* Prices will likely become more uniform.
* Service will improve. The FCC wants to push for a 100mbs connection speed across the country ( I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread). * Rural connection speeds will improve.
* User Fees will be created that will increase the final cost of service for everyone.

As far as a universal application of a renewed "Fairness Doctrine", I'm not seeing the dire consequences some people see. I don't think it will start raining dogs, fish, or snails. I don't believe that Christian Radio stations will have to start allotting time for Muslims or other religious views on their stations as they tell their listeners.

These are my feelings based on years of dealing with the FCC as a licensee, and a user of land based telecom. I'm not actually going to race around the internet tonight and look for things to back up my feelings because as soon as I post anything like that, someone else will post up their link to inform me that I am WRONG and an opinionated boob.

Well, I already know that... , well at least the opinionated boob part...

Ron

 

[Darky]

I think the current policy isn't to slow one person down for another but to allot more bandwidth to Google than, say, www.purple.com.

Being a "rural" customer (1/4 mile from everything...pizza delivery, cable, and high speed), I like the sound of them extending coverage out to me. But I think they can decide to extend coverage further without tacking on requirements for equal airtime.

 

[XJEEPER]

LOL!

If the FCC gets involved in the internet, I see a few things happening:

* The Internet providers will have to be fair about their connections. No slowing one customer down for another.
* Prices will likely become more uniform.
* Service will improve. The FCC wants to push for a 100mbs connection speed across the country ( I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread). * Rural connection speeds will improve.
* User Fees will be created that will increase the final cost of service for everyone.


Ron

Not accurate.

Land-based carriers are not going to invest millions of dollars in infrastructure to deliver high-speed internet to remote users at the same price per Mb as they do to a densly populated user base because the ROI is not there.
The only way to do this and make prices "uniform" is to make the folks in densly populated areas pay more per Mb to offset the costs of laying fiber to more rural areas, where there are fewer users paying for service.

As I attempted to explain in previous posts, capitalism isn't about being "fair", or forcing businesses to provide like services to everyone.

If the legislation is passed which allows FCC to force land-based carriers to expand their infrastruction, as you've described, their expenses will exceed their revenue they will be forced out of business by government regulation and mandates.

This is called Socialism.


Thanks to Capitalism, there is an ever-expanding market of wireless high-speed internet providers that are targeting the rural market segment where wired infrastructure is lacking.


Supply and demand. If more people want to pay for it, the supply will increase.