Fox News Forgets Net Neutrality in Story on Net Neutrality? Video

Send PROOF of bias to Fox News by emailing this video to show.livedesk@foxnews.com or tweeting it to @livedesk

For those who don't think the so-called "straight news" programs on Fox News are ideologically biased, I present this video showing news anchor Trace Gallagher on the Fox News program "Live Desk" reporting a story on net neutrality that is so one-sided it fails to ever actually mention the concept or even the words "net neutrality."

You can see the entire Fox News story that was broadcast October 22, 2009, from which I take 2 short clips for my video on the Fox News website at http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=10898580

I also show an image of the YouTube webpage including my July 2008 video titled "Fox News Parrots McCain Spin on NY Times Editorial Rejection" which is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhyedUq6s8Y

The image of the Washington Post article by John McCain titled "'Net neutrality' would slow the flow" that I show in this video comes from the webpage at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/net-neutrality-would-slow-the-flow-fcc-plan-is-ano/

The image of the ACLU webpage describing net neutrality that I show in this video comes from http://aclu.org/freethenet

The LiveDesk Twitter page I show in in this video is available online at http://twitter.com/livedesk

And, finally, as always, you can find DOZENS and DOZENS more examples of Fox News bias on my Fox News bias playlist on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Save & Share:

TRMerc: Wow a service provider actually charging for providing their services? *GASP* the FIENDS! What's the difference between having an ad in the yellow pages and paying for a larger ad space? Your site will still show up on Google I bet if you type in the name, Google is just saying "Pay us to PROMOTE your site" It isn't illegal when the yellowpages did it, why should it be illegal just because it moved from paper to the internet?

TRMerc: The ONLY way big ISPs would be able to stop that is through ILLEGAL MEANS Which any court in this country will stop. It's called ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS Same reason Standard Oil was broken up, they would go into an area and undercut the local gas stations, then when there was no competition rise their prices. They also controlled ALL the oil and sold it to competitors at a higher price then was fair. Can anyone tell me what happened for a guaranteed free internet WITHOUT net neutrality?

bluezr1: Net neutrality is a bill that basically leaves things the way they are. McCain was against the bill, reason is he got very large contributions from internet service provider like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast within the past few years. This is a guy that doesnt even know how to use email. Basically without net neutrality we would lose all the freedom we have now and would wind up restricting our freedom of speech. Why some of you oppose this is beyond me.

rbairos1: bluezr1, you could not be more wrong. Net neutrality *is* government control of a voluntary system. Its the free market that created Youtube, Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Youtube, etc,etc. Net neutrality *is* restriction of freedom of speech. Its not restriction when you have to negotiate a price with a private property owner to use their service. Sheeze. Why is internet access 1,000 times faster than in 1994 but not 1,000 times more expensive btw? The Market. These laws *are* fascist.

rbairos1: You think Net Neutrality protects freedom of speech, by having the government *FORCE* private property owners (ISPs) to allow you to use their service as you see fit, and not on the owners terms? What do you think protection of free speech means? Its means protection from government threat or favortism. If you cant negotiate a better price, suck it up. Again, ISPs are about a thousand times faster for the same price as 1994. Shouldn't they all have colluded to keep the price higher? Think.

TRMerc: Sure, ISPs somehow are going to be able to break monopoly laws which have been around for over 100 years and stopping Monopolies the WHOLE time Standard Oil, AT&T, and Microsoft were broken up those were flukes (wait are AT&T and Microsoft Modern companies?) Anti-Monopoly laws include laws against: * Predatory pricing * Tying (commerce) and product bundling * Limiting supply * Price discrimination * Refusal to deal and exclusive dealing Aren't those things net neut wants?

TRMerc: Because it is simple, the GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY THE ISPS ARE GOING TO DO, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT UNDER THE SAME MEANS AS THE FCC SO IT WILL BE LEGAL FOR THEM BUT ILLEGAL FOR ISPS Thought maybe big text would help you understand

TRMerc: Hey welcome to the club I work for Big Insurance Companies along with all of those things *high five* Lies! Don't you see they SAY you're getting speeds better then 56k, but current speeds are actually 23k and they are charging $100 a MONTH where they use to be charging $40 a month. We are getting SLOWER SPEEDS for a HIGHER PRICE. It's MADNESS... or Sparta I get the two mixed up something Hey cookies *nom nom nom*

bluezr1: ISPs were going to restrict sites unless they had a lot of capital to the point where the only sites that would be worth visiting would be very large ones. They have been fighting for this for some time and would make it impossible for new sites to arise ex. twitter, yahoo and YouTube.

bluezr1: It would have turned into GREED on the internet

rbairos1: bluezr1. First of all youre confusing your nightmare conspiracy with reality. ISPs are in the business of making money. They make money by exchanging goods and services with the public. If one ISP only delivered a smidgeon of the available content, they'd be beat by other ISPs that provided more for cheaper. What do I base this on? Reality. Why don't ISPs charge the same per kilobyte price they did sold 56k access? What stopped them all from colluding together as you warn us? Free market.

bluezr1: Facts and common sense are my logic. Some find out the story late and jump in without knowledge of the subject they are talking about. At times I feel as though I get decimated by fox news itself.

bluezr1: You base your knowledge on what service you get to your house. The bill has no impact in that direstriction. It is a bill that restricts ISPs from, in your language get paid off. PERIOD

bluezr1: Just to correct you, AOL was $9:99 per month back in 1994. A high speed connection these days go for around $60 per month.

rbairos1: "Just to correct you AOL was $9.99 per month back in 1994. A high pseed connection these days go for around $60 per month." Boy, you don't give people here much credit do you. You can get a dialup connection for $5 bucks a month (which is still about 4 times faster than AOL's 1994 14.4k modems). And for the $60 you quote, you forget to mention its about *** 500 times faster **** than 1994 offers. Nice try at hiding the facts.

rbairos1: That being said, please explain why ISPs haven't charged 500 times more for what they offered in 1994, or why you think customers wouldn't switch to the first competitor who didn't throttle most websites. But more importantly than that, tell me why *you* have the right to legally dictate what services private individuals will offer to the public. They're not allowed to give premium service to higher paying clients, but are allowed to closeup shop entirely? Net neutrality is populist garbage.

bluezr1: "Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs."

bluezr1: You keep going about what service you get to your house? Do you even know what net neutrality is? This wasnt pulled out of thin air; ISPs wanted to start charging web sites a fee, the more money you have the faster your service.

rbairos1: First of all, net neutrality debates started when ISPs wanted to throttle movie transfers since a relatively small portion of users took most of the bandwidth. It also came as a result of ISPs wanting to charge more for new and better services. You know, like Fedex vs USPS, taxis vs bus system, tolled express lanes vs congested highways etc. If you think banning new premium services means equal service for all, then you're right. Equal stagnant service for all.

rbairos1: "Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs" What do you think choice and costs are based on now? Meeting consumer demand. Why on earth would you replace that input process with government regulation and bureaucracy? For the record, the internet *is* as you describe. Most content is delivered by a handful of mega giants eg youtube

rassclatirons: Look up Printa video on youtube by Christopher Irons.You need to see this!It's BIG news

lofty49: Obama's a puppet anyway.

kat74n1: I love what you are doing!!! Thank YOU!!!!

jasonwhy: we should all watch CNN cause Kanye West's new outbursts or where Obama ate lunch is what is important.

Viperzka: What is so amusing about people freaking out over net neutrality is that they claim it will change the internet. The internet is currently overseen by the FCC. Their power to oversee it is expiring and they want to make sure it continues to be fairly regulated. If net neutrality failed it would change the internet, if it passed it would leave the internet the same.

Author: LiberalViewer; Uploaded: Oct 23, 2009; Duration: 3:45; Views: 21849

Tags: fox  news  net  neutrality  fcc  regulations  federal  communications  commission  president  barack  john  mccain  washington  times  aclu  american  civil  liberties  union  obama  bias  straight  trace  gallagher  live  desk  commentary  analysis  liberal  viewer  liberalviewer  neutrality principle neutrality principle accounting neutrality accounting definition neutrality in accounting neutrality schmeutrality neutrality of money neutrality definition neutrality accounting neutrality arch neutrality acts