Content Control > ha ha

reply to LegoPower77

Re: ha ha

said by LegoPower77:

---

You all are losing, you all all losing. Nah nah nah nah nah. We don't need nanny-state government to take care of us, you freakin' leftists.

---

Ambrose is correct of course.

The bigger the media giants get, the more alternative media is in demand, whether through books, magazines, flyers, internet, radio, television or good ol' fashion word-of-mouth.

As long of course as we continue to have the right to freedom of speech.

But the sheep will still always be sheep, whether there are 3 or 3,000,000 media outlets available.

Choosing begets choice.

Yeah but their market position won't permit competition, especially with the same television media outlet owns the largest newspapers, magazines and book publishers...as well as the cable franchises.

Of course, if you insist upon going to the major media outlets for your media, then you will continue to get your media from major media outlets...

While finding alternative media may not be as easy as hitting the power button on your remote control from the comfort of your big cushy couch, it is out there and it is more abundant and easier to get your hands on than it has ever been before.

It's not EXISTENCE of alternative media, it's access to alternative media that needs protection.

Let's say for instance that Comcast strikes a deal for streaming video and music with say Launch.com while xyz.com offers video and music also. Are you okay with Comcast bandwidth throttling xyz.com in discourage people from using it in favor of their own service?

It's simply a "must carry" issue for broadband providers. I guess you guys don't think that cable operators should have to carry local programming either right? You guys think the "must carry" provision is a bad one?

It isn't always about news. It's about a company using it's market position instead of merit to compete. Funny, when it was Microsoft getting nailed for this restricted access tactics most here didn't have a problem with it.