Fairness Doctrine of the Internet: Net Neutrality

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509810

Not much was said when $7.2 billion was included in the stimulus bill "to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas and to strategic institutions that are likely to create jobs or provide significant public benefits." The administration has big plans for the Internet — like controlling it.

They noted that after only a decade, "roughly two-thirds of Americans connect through high-speed communications that are available to 95% of households."

"Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits," Lloyd wrote. "Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." Lloyd feels government should be the voice controlling what you see and hear.

The irony here is that it has been the Internet, talk radio and cable news that have provided access to unheard and suppressed voices. News and commentary no longer have to get past the gatekeepers at CBS, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times. And judging from ratings and circulation, they do not deserve to be called mainstream anymore. It is they who are the fringe media.

Bloggers and talk show callers now have a voice. Conservatives have competed in the marketplace of ideas and won. It's not their fault no one wanted to listen to Air America or that Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com and HotAir.com constantly pull back the curtain on the wizards of this administration.

Net neutrality is not designed to liberate, but to suppress. It's the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet that, like diversity in talk radio and the war on Fox News, is designed to marginalize and silence those who disagree with those in power.

Mark Lloyd on Net Neutrality

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/21/7210

Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it. Their plans could have dire consequences for those whose voices are often marginalized by our nation's media system.

So does this mean the government will then control what content you have access to?

FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd: Forget the Fairness Doctrine

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/lloyd_fairness.html

"In our report, we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules. But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine."

"Despite what we thought was fairly stark evidence of conservative bias, despite clear proposals to address that bias, Rush Limbaugh and other distortionists insisted that we were calling for a “return” of the Fairness Doctrine. But as we wrote, 'simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.' ”

"But the image of eager federal bureaucrats peering over the shoulders of all of America’s radio talk show hosts with a stopwatch in hand is as absurd as it is impractical."

"We want to create more ownership opportunities and more speech focused on local interests. We want either clear rules that promote these First Amendment values or a reasonable payment to the public for the use of its property."

"All of these public policy objectives are there for Congress and the FCC to act upon within current law. There is no need to return to the Fairness Doctrine."

Recommendations from "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

• National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations.
• In terms of local ownership, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market
• All radio broadcast licensees should be required to use a standardized form to provide information on how the station serves the public interest in a variety of areas.
• Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
• Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
• Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the processto determine whether the license should be extended. In addition, the FCC should be required to maintain a website to conduct on-line discussions and facilitate interaction with public about licensee conduct.
• If commercial radio broadcasters are unwilling to abide by these regulatory standards or the FCC is unable to effectivelyregulate in the public interest, a spectrum use fee should be levied on owners to directly support local, regional, and national public broadcasting.

Recommendations from Mark Llyod's Prologue to a Farce: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/52435
Prologue to a Farce on Google Books

(Page 277) "Broadcasters should pay for the great privilege of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned spectrum."

(Page 278) “Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”