Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
My foolish comments just aren't worthy of such cartooning gravitas. I will aspire to grow intellectually to receive the powerful messages which are so far beyond me.
Now I haz a sad. 
Project much?
The take away should be
that cluelessness or blinded by bias
is equally evident in BOTH camps.
Cluster bombs or empty rhetoric...
The *lesser of two evils* is NOT cluster bombs,
regime change, and endless war for profit.
when you have nothing intelligent to say.
Ciao. 
Two cents a post?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant overhaul of United States telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. The Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a major change in American telecommunication law, since it was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment.[1] One of the most controversial titles was Title 3 ("Cable Services"
, which allowed for media cross-ownership.[1] According to the FCC, the goal of the law was to "let anyone enter any communications business—to let any communications business compete in any market against any other".[2] The legislation's primary goal was deregulation of the converging broadcasting and telecommunications markets.[3] However, the law's regulatory policies have been questioned, including the effects of dualistic re-regulation of the communications market [4] [5]
, which allowed for media cross-ownership.[1] According to the FCC, the goal of the law was to "let anyone enter any communications business—to let any communications business compete in any market against any other".[2] The legislation's primary goal was deregulation of the converging broadcasting and telecommunications markets.[3] However, the law's regulatory policies have been questioned, including the effects of dualistic re-regulation of the communications market [4] [5]
fallout -- 2005 (10 years ago, but the media and teleciommuniucaitons giants are still pushing for more consolidation.)
http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf
Nearly 10 years ago, with little attention from the public, Congress passed the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. It was supposed to produce more competition, more diversity of viewpoints, lower prices
for consumers, and more wealth and jobs for the economy.
Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices.
Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in
lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills.1
But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent.2
Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy
by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications’ companies’ market value had fallen by about
$2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs.
And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news
and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they
need to participate in their democracy.
How the Telecommunications Act of 1996 got passed, and its unexpected consequences, offer vivid lessons
in what happens when public policy is made largely without either informing or consulting the public, and
when big corporations, spending millions on political contributions and lobbying in Washington,3 get to
skew the policy debate and make promises they do not intend to keep. The story of the Telecom Act
also demonstrates what can happen when a federal agency—the Federal Communications Commission—
is permitted to issue rules that flout what Congress intended.
Now, as Congress is about to pass crucial legislation affecting the nation’s telecommunications policy, and
as it prepares to revise the Telecommunications Act of 1996, special interests once again are mounting a
campaign to get their priorities into the law. They retain the advantages that wealth and power always give
in the political process.
Since 1997, just eight of the country’s largest and most powerful media and telecommunications
companies, their corporate parents, and three of their trade groups, have spent more than $400 million
on political contributions and lobbying in Washington, according to a Common Cause analysis of federal
records. Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric
Co./NBC, News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association,
and the United States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations
since 1997. These eight companies and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on
lobbying in Washington, since 1998, when lobbying expenditures were first required to be disclosed.
Act of 1996. It was supposed to produce more competition, more diversity of viewpoints, lower prices
for consumers, and more wealth and jobs for the economy.
Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices.
Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in
lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills.1
But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent.2
Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy
by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications’ companies’ market value had fallen by about
$2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs.
And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news
and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they
need to participate in their democracy.
How the Telecommunications Act of 1996 got passed, and its unexpected consequences, offer vivid lessons
in what happens when public policy is made largely without either informing or consulting the public, and
when big corporations, spending millions on political contributions and lobbying in Washington,3 get to
skew the policy debate and make promises they do not intend to keep. The story of the Telecom Act
also demonstrates what can happen when a federal agency—the Federal Communications Commission—
is permitted to issue rules that flout what Congress intended.
Now, as Congress is about to pass crucial legislation affecting the nation’s telecommunications policy, and
as it prepares to revise the Telecommunications Act of 1996, special interests once again are mounting a
campaign to get their priorities into the law. They retain the advantages that wealth and power always give
in the political process.
Since 1997, just eight of the country’s largest and most powerful media and telecommunications
companies, their corporate parents, and three of their trade groups, have spent more than $400 million
on political contributions and lobbying in Washington, according to a Common Cause analysis of federal
records. Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric
Co./NBC, News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association,
and the United States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations
since 1997. These eight companies and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on
lobbying in Washington, since 1998, when lobbying expenditures were first required to be disclosed.
There are countless lies she tells.
Many of them are trivial, but it
illuminates her character.
She says whatever she believes will
cast her in a favorable light,
or gain sympathy.
She even goes as far as to adopt fake accents.
We live in a nation of over 300 million people.
Yet somehow Hillary is the the BEST candidate
to represent Democratic values????
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/