In article
,
Billy wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4552138.stm

Towards a two-tier internet
The egalitarian nature of the internet is under threat, argues internet
law professor Michael Geist.


In article ,
dave wrote:

[We control the horizontal; we control the vertical]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
November 30, 2010 Bruce Romano, 202-418-2124


FCC PROPOSES INITIAL STEPS TO OPEN TV SPECTRUM
TO NEW WIRELESS BROADBAND SERVICES


Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Communications Commission today took
important steps to meet the nation¹s demand for innovative wireless
broadband services and preserve the benefits that free over-the- air TV
provides for consumers.

In adopting proposals to make more efficient use of the nation¹s
airwaves, the FCC set the stage for voluntary broadcast spectrum
auctions that could provide consumers with the robust mobile broadband
services they demand while preserving over-the-air TV that many rely
upon. The resulting efficient use of airwaves will help ensure that
America leads the global wireless revolution and enjoys the resulting
jobs and economic growth.

Specifically, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the FCC today
proposes that wireless broadband providers have equal access to
television broadcast frequencies that could become available in spectrum
auctions. The Notice seeks comment on establishing new allocations for
both fixed and mobile wireless services in the TV broadcast bands.

The Notice also explores enabling TV stations to voluntarily combine
their operations and distinct programming lineups on a single TV
channel. The Notice requests comment on the proposed rules that would
enable TV broadcasters to opt to share channels by further tapping the
technical capabilities that became available following the nation¹s
historic transition to digital television in 2009.



The main points of neo-liberalism include:

4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to
private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll
highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although
usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed,
privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even
more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private
enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no
matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to
international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by
de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won
over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total
freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this
is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to
increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's
like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow
the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and
health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance
of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing
government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and
tax benefits for business.

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that
could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on
the job.

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and
replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest
people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care,
education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if
they fail, as "lazy."
-----
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0312-08.htm

. . . the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any
sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules
and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't
work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class
during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began
applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish
in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up
steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no
market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,
"Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class,
and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to
trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international
economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by
authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market.
And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules
have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting
from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since
1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic
industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money
AND serves the public interest.

Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The
"middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do
whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The
"middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies
will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle"
mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have
traditionally been called "serfs."
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug